Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 7

How do you feel about rewriting the lede?
The lede of this article has been a sore point for some time, and does not reflect the understanding of the term "Ugg boots" for 99 percent of the world's population. The term "Ugg boots," for 99 percent of the world's population, is understood to mean a trademarked brand owned by Deckers. I believe that the first sentence should state this fact very clearly. The third paragraph adequately describes the dispute between Deckers and the Australian manufacturers, and the fact that in Australia and New Zealand, it is a generic term.

But in the rest of the world, it isn't a generic term. And the first sentence should be structured around this fact. We cannot allow two small countries to define the meaning of a term for the other 200+ countries of the world, who have their own understanding of the term. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been suggested over and over for years and has consistently failed to gain consensus. It should be added to the talk page as a FAQ to avoid wasting editors time by bringing it up again. UGG is a registered trademark of Deckers, however there is no dispute that Ugg Boot is also a generic term used to describe a style of footwear. This article is about the generic style of footwear, not the specific brand and specifically states that in the first sentence of the lede. Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertising. Wayne (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, the "Facts" don't support your argument. The courts are the ultimate decider in these matters and if you read this article, they have concluded in Asia, Europe and the USA that "Ugg" is NOT a generic name and is a proprietary brand name (as per the extensive list of trademarks). Coke makes cola, Pepsi makes cola, Pepsi does not make "Coke a cola" even what it is sometimes referred to by the brand with larger brands awareness, i.e. "Give me a coke". Our kids have both Ugg boots and Emu boots but they don't call their Emu boots "uggs". Not in America, sorry.--Bigdog2828 (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Struck as sock puppet of User:Illume1999 - Bilby (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death, and we're not likely to see a change in consensus now. The simple answer is that there are two meanings to the term "ugg boot" - one refers to the generic style of footwear that is found in Australia and New Zealand, and is the focus of this article, and the other refers to the particular brand of footwear, and is covered in UGG Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation. As the first line of this article makes that very clear, and as effectively a third of the lead is devoted to that distinction, it seems sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And why are you deleting the well sourced facts I've added concerning the settlement of the Emu Australia lawsuit? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P&W, the info on the resolution to the Emu case has been restored. Sorry for reverting it (yes, multiple times). I recommend you not slip in newly sourced information with a mass of other POV edits. Returning editors like myself have our patience totally worn down by your continued pushing of POV content into this article. Donama (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The alleged "mass of other POV edits" consisted of (A) simply rearranging the sentences in the article lede to more clearly recognize the leading role Deckers has played in making UGG brand boots a worldwide fashion icon; and (B) removing the word "ugg" from a description of events that occurred decades before the term was coined. The repeated deletion of well-sourced facts regarding dismissal of the Emu Australia lawsuit -- facts that happen to be favorable to Deckers -- by two editors (Donama and TMCk) demonstrates their bias against Deckers. A thorough review of the Emu Australia website confirms that any mention of the word "ugg" has been removed, and it happened at the same time as the settlement. Do you really believe this is a coincidence? And as a result of the settlement, Emu's accusations about false statements to the USPTO have been withdrawn.
 * This is clearly a huge win for Deckers, and an illustration of the fact that at Wikipedia, such unproven allegations by partisan litigants should never be included in the article mainspace. Anyone can make accusations that are spurious and even ridiculous, but proving them in a court of law is far more difficult. It was this particular hurdle that produced the failure by Emu Australia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, as the sources don't seem to reveal what the conditions of the settlement were, I'm a bit uncomfortable with using what looks like original research to establish what the agreement was. It does't seem like particularly bad OR, so I certainly won't object if consensus is to add it, but I think we need to look for consensus first. - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we don't have a source for the settlement, we shouldn't have the material in the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why WP:OR is not allowed. I don't dispute that Emu have removed the word ugg from their website, but we don't know why, and if it was as part of the backroom agreement in this case, then presumably Deckers made some concession too, but we just don't know what it is because it's not on the public record. I'm totally against inclusion of this information not just because there's no source (which is reason enough), but because its very likely to be incomplete information about the conclusion of the case. Donama (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * P&W claims "the case was dismissed" but in the actual cited references it states that the matter was "settled" or that the parties "reached a settlement" - wording which gives a very different impression to a casual reader. In any case the relevance of this internecine squabble between manufacturers to this article about the generic footwear style is not great. Suggest that P&W's energy would be better spent adding it to the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article where it is somewhat more relevant. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The confidential settlement and dismissal of all claims provides no further support to either parties’ allegations or positions in this matter. All the back and forth discussion concerning this case only supports the fact that mere allegations of partisan litigants have no encyclopedic value.  I think most people would agree that only objective judgments from the court should be reported on cases like this.--Factchk (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Attorney's statement
Ok, I removed the David Steward reference in this section:
 * The UGG trademark has been the subject of dispute in several countries. The trademark for "Ugh-Boots" has been removed from the trademark registry in Australia and any ugg boots may be marketed there using the term "ugg." Outside Australia and New Zealand, UGG (written in capital letters) is a registered trademark of Deckers Outdoor Corporation. Australian attorney and trademark expert David Steward told Channel 7 News in Perth that the Australian manufacturers were fighting a losing battle against Deckers. 

Since then, the IP and Phoenix and Winslow have returned it. Rather than edit warring over it, I figured it was best brought here. The statement by the attorney was made in 2004. At the time it was made in response to Decker's decision to enforce their trademark in Australia. As we know, in 2006 the Australian manufacturers won, and retained the right to call their boots "ugg boots" in the country. Thus the attorney was proven wrong. Placed there, as one of the first lines in the Trademark disputes section, without clarifying that it was shown to be incorrect, is a significant POV problem: it paints a picture that the Australian manufacturers will loose, even though the situation it was referring to was one where they won, and there is no reason to assume that this will be overturned at any point in the future. This is especially problematic, because the statement comes after the paragraph notes that the trademark was removed in Australia, suggesting that the statement refers to the situation post that event, when it refers to the situation prior to it.

I'd rather not edit war over this, so is there a chance to get some consensus on this text? - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a point of view which would be fine, if 1. it were it not outdated as you explain and 2. a clear, concrete statement rather than one which is open to interpretation. To leave it in actually misleads the reader. Given this and the already controversial nature of the article it definitely needs to be removed. Donama (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course that sentence has to be removed. It is cherry picking at its worst: a throw-away comment from 2004 added as an afterthought to a puff article about something different from trademarks. The line would be inappropriate even if it turned out to be correct (it the assertion is correct, find a proper source). Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A search for consensus.
As we've been locked to editing I thought I would get the ball rolling on trying to work out some sort of consensus about where to go with this article.

My own preference, as always, has been to keep this article purely about the generic term, with relevant reference to the other understandings of "ugg boots" and leaving all the deeper examinations of legal action, discussions over whether generic items should/are protected (in this case) and so forth on the page about Deckers/Ugg Australia, where I firmly believe they more properly belong.

Since, for years now, we have been unable to reach anything beyond a simple majority consensus for keeping this article more strongly geared toward the generic term, I feel that the article as it currently exists represents a far better "consensus compromise" than the edits proposed by Phoenix & Winslow and supported by the anonymous editor who has recently joined us.

I submit that the article as it currently exists, has more than enough reminders that Deckers/people in certain countries might disagree with the idea of a generic term existing and any further watering down of the relevance of generic understandings of the boot as represented in this article will begin to seriously undermine this article's status as informing a reader, unfamilar with the concept, as to its very existence. Wikipedia is not about pushing what the courts in some countries deem "legal" or protecting trademark rights of companies, but is about informing the reader about reality and the undisputed, oft referenced reality is that ugg boots have long been generic in Australia and New Zealand. I feel the article as it currently stands already goes some way toward this, first mentioned, undesirable outcome, but I am prepared to live with it for the sake of the best consensus we are capable of maintaining in the current climate.

Editors who feel more needs to be made of Deckers' case - I refer you to the list of sources at the end of this article. Observe how nearly every one of these sources is either an article putting forth Deckers' claims, or an article mobalised in order to offer some measure of rebuttal, clarification of those claims. To me, this suggests that the article is drifting further and further away from its original role as one explaining the history and nature of a generic boot style and is becoming an article more appropriately titled "Dispute between Deckers Outdoor Corp and Australian boot manufacturers". As such, I will support no edits which further dilute the original drive of the article, steer us toward a situation where we, effectively, have two topics, with one of the topics (the generic) eclipsed by the second topic (Ugg Australia) -- which has it's very own article anyway -- bleeding over too strongly into it -- particularly when there is clearly no consensus, sources are dubious at best, or clearly cherry-picked, out of context pieces of info being inserted to subtly alter the semiotics of the article. I feel as though we are already compromising by allowing so much Deckers content in this entry - further content and tuning toward Deckers does nothing to address this -- it only damages the usefulness of this entry as a resource. All the information about Deckers and the dispute is readily available at the other entry.Mandurahmike (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point, it's the persistent use of the word "generic" that is most objectionable. The anon editor is correct: like "habeas corpus" and "manslaughter," it has a specific legal meaning in trademark law. Australian manufacturers have argued that it is generic, but there has been no court decision; and the current state of the article surrenders that battlefield to them without firing a shot. There are many other ways to state that "ugg boots" has entered widepread use in Australia and New Zealand to describe a particular style of boot; that "ugg boot" is a common term in Australia and New Zealand to refer to a boot style; etc. We must avoid confusing the reader wherever possible, and the persistent incorrect use of this legal terminology is starting to look like a deliberate effort to confuse the reader. The word "generic" must be replaced in every instance where there has not been a specific court finding on the generic term issue, except for one mention that Australian manufacturers have argued that the term is generic.


 * My second objection is the removal of the "Concerns about quality" section. When it said "Australian company makes the best ugg boots," none of you expressed any objection to either the content or the source quality. As Wayne would say, you gave it your tacit approval. But the moment the study result is described more accurately as "Deckers makes the highest quality boots of genuine sheepskin," suddenly you attack it from every angle you can. The timing of this sudden reversal of position makes the motive suspect. Efforts to make the paragraph shorter to satisfy weight concerns aren't good enough; it must be deleted completely. In the meantime, you insist that the fact Deckers hasn't paid someone's costs yet is notable enough to deserve space and weight in the article. It's ludicrous.


 * My third objection is Wayne. Sorry guys, but he's on a jihad to right great wrongs at Wikipedia. He always adopts the minority/fringe position on every article, whether it's the "9/11 Truther" position (pretending that George W. Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 terrorist attacks), or the "Franklin coverup" position (pretending that the so-called "Franklin child prostitution ring" really did exist, and that they engaged in murder, false prosecution, and witness intimidation to successfully cover it up — in defiance of a jury trial that found the chief accuser guilty of multiple counts of perjury, beyond a reasonable doubt). Franklin child prostitution ring allegations was stubbed by administrators because it was packed chock full of his fringe theory garbage, derived from an unreliable source that I successfully campaigned against. He's dishonest, twisting and distorting little details whenever he says anything about anything, in any context. The fact that Wayne is on your side should be taken as a sign that you may be on the wrong side.


 * My fourth objection is that the "it's a generic term" people are in the minority worldwide, possibly even the fringe. This is not the Australian Wikipedia. The term is trademarked in 145 countries, including all the most populated ones. It has been removed from the trademark registry in one or two small countries and, even in Australia, there has been no official finding that it's a generic term. Everywhere the generic term defense has been tried outside Australia, it's been shot down in flames. A spectacular failure across the board, with costs always awarded to Deckers and in some cases, prison terms for the counterfeiters. Yet the general tone of the first half of the article is "it's a generic term .... it's a generic term ... it's a generic term." The "it's a trademark" position isn't even given equal status, as evidenced in each and every facet of the lede. To give just one example, an attempt to change a sentence to read "There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether 'ugg' is a protected trademark or generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection" has been persistently reverted to "There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether "ugg" is a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection."


 * Neither side is going to achieve consensus the way this editing crew is currently constituted. So I think I'll take Wayne up on his invitation and submit this to a Request for Comment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your second objection is irrelevant. The section should not have been there regardless. Nobody disagrees with this or is trying to defend it.
 * Your third objection is also irrelevant. So what if you don't like a particular editor who disagrees with you. That has nothing to do with this article and there's hardly anything the rest of us can do to fix that objection. I don't believe any of are "taking sides" but trying to keep Wikipedia to its encyclopaedic objective of sharing knowledge, not helping some company promote their brand.
 * Your fourth objection is also irrelevant because, again, majority opinion on the internet doesn't equate to knowledge. To be perfectly honest it usually just equates to dominant US-centric belief rather than fact.
 * That leaves your objection about the word generic. There might be a genuinely better way to describe that uggs are generic than using the word generic, but let's discuss that in a separate section by itself and not conflate it with all these other distractions.
 * As to an RFC, I hope you remember that this has been done before and your POV was basically rejected, and not by an Australian, but an American editor. See "Is someone going to submit an RFC?".
 * In my opinion we already have consensus so there is no search needed here. It's just that Deckers would like to change this article to better suit its commercial aims, an intention incompatible with the intention of Wikipedia as a project. Donama (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)4


 * I count four editors on one side and three on the other. No consensus possible. You claim that no one is defending the "Concern about quality" section, but the anon editor reverted its deletion at least twice. Wayne doesn't just disagree with me; he's a fringe theorist, and the latest fringe theory he has adopted is yours. You try to dismiss the application of mainstream vs. minority opinion, but here at Wikipedia we have a guideline called WP:FRINGE. Jimbo Wales said, "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it." With 145 national IP authorities and the courts of several countries to support it, the "It's a trademark" view is the mainstream view. With two national IP authorities (maybe) (from small countries) and absolutely zero courts to support it, the "It's a generic term" view is the minority view at best. Review WP:FRINGE, consider the fact that this guideline is so well-supported by the Wikipedia community that we have a fringe theories noticeboard, and talk to me in the morning. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you explain why then, assuming we accept that it is currently standing at 4:3 against, you went ahead and repeatedly performed the edits? Given that you, yourself, have previously argued in other articles that 3:2 in FAVOUR is not sufficient consensus for an edit, I am curious why you seem to think that 4:3 is, in this case, insufficient consensus to PREVENT an edit? Which way do you want it to work?Mandurahmike (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the generic term. This has been confirmed by an independent third opinion last August (see Archive 4). All this internecine squabbling between the various manufacturers of ugg boots is at the outer limit of relevance to the generic item and really belongs on the articles about said manufacturers if they have them and to be excised entirely if the manufacturer concerned is not itself notable. P&W please note that courts do not determine matters of fact they determine matters of law. If you seriously believe that there is no such thing as a generic ugg boot you are welcome to list this article at AFD but you should expect a speedy keep and to be laughed at for trying. Also your personal feud with Wayne is not relevant to ugg boots in any way, shape or form and should have no bearing on this discussion. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned with Phoenix and Winslow's attempts to discredit me as an aditor by continually bringing up our previous dispute and making false claims regarding the content of my previous editing to support his case in this unrelated article. Editors here should note that he took the same claims to three different noticeboards where he not only failed to prove these claims but an admin advised me to report him to WP:ANI for his behaviour for which I prepared this page for use if I filed one. This appears to be a continuation of his previous page ownership behaviour which is entirely innapropriate. I ask him one last time to restrict his comments to this articles content.


 * This article is not called "The legal aspects of the UGG tradmark case". I agree with the points made by Bilby, Donama, Mandurahmike and Daveosaurus. Wayne (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We do need to decide what the subject matter will be for this article. If it is a boot style, then so be it. But if it is the generic term, then it will be about trademark cases. Making one visit to the WIPO trademark site or any government's IP authority website, and entering "generic" into the search engine, is enough to prove that "generic term" is legal terminology. Since there has been a third opinion deciding that the article must be about the generic term, then the restrictions of the current state of the law in all countries must be applied. There has been no determination in any Australian or New Zealand court that "Ugg" or "Ugh" is a generic term. In all other countries, it is definitely a trademark and brand name, not a generic term. Daveosaurus is confused about the decisions a court can make. A court decides facts and is often called a finder of fact. For example, an Australian court would decide whether "Ugg" or "Ugh" is a generic term in common usage in Australia. Then the law is applied to the facts that have been determined. Wikipedia rules about mainstream opinion and minority opinion must be applied. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is about the general style of footwear known as ugg boots, not about the generic term defence, nor is it about specific instances of the style. "Ugg boot" is the common or generic name in the countries of origin of a style of boots that originated in Australia and New Zealand. Legal issues relating to trademark battles have been considered within the domain of this topic in the past, and I don't see why that should change, but they are not intended as the primary focus of the article - it is simply that there has been a push to cover that aspect over other aspects of the style. - Bilby (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, no, no - courts do NOT decide "facts", they decide legalities. At best they *interpret* facts to determine what legalities should be in their region. These legalities differ from country to country. In some countries courts decide all sorts of things that are not considered "facts" or even legalities in the USA, Australia, and other countries. Just because a court has not established that ugg boots are generic in Australia. Has any court established that the sky is blue? That winter is cool/cold and summer warm/hot? The mere absence or presence of a court judgement does not change alter or create reality. Courts are not the authors of fundamental truths of life.


 * The term "generic" is not exclusively a legal one, in fact, in Australia and other countries the term "generic" is rarely/not always used in the same way it is in the USA to describe things like "generic medications" - Before the word "generic" was heavily associated with generic products it had a core meaning - (and I quote from the dictionary): 1. applicable or referring to a whole class or group; general   -- It has a further, different definition, the one you're talking about. -- 2. denoting the nonproprietary name of a drug, food product, etc


 * While these definitions both apply in this case, the main reason the word crops up in this article is because in their countries of original ugg boots are, well ... ugg boots. That's the word for them - the "GENERAL WORD APPLICABLE OR REFERRING TO THE WHOLE CLASS OF BOOT" that has existed since the year dot. This, in Australia and New Zealand, had implications for the second definition, however we are primarily, in this case, concerned with the fact that in Australia and New Zealand the word ugg boots was the general term for this particular style of boots in the same way "hot dog" is the general term for a long, split bun with a sausage inside. It is THIS meaning of generic, as the most natural, everyday way of referring to a particular style of boot that is important to this discussion. Now, to put it in a context easier to understand from someone translating this through legal terminology. Imagine if, instead of calling their allergy medication "Allegra", whoever was responsible for it decided to name it "allergy pills". How would people talk about allergy pills in general now that the word has been hijacked into a brand name? Do you dispute that such pills have generically been called this for years and years? If the makers of "Allergy Pills (TM)", perhaps from some country/region where no such object was previously available, decided to sue and the courts found in their favour in certain regions, does this overwrite the fact that people were calling things "allergy pills" all along? I mean, I'm pretty sure no court has ever determined that this is a generic term.


 * Now, as to your other comment about "deciding what this article is about" - although that has been rendered somewhat moot by the fact that I've just pointed out that discussion about the term "generic" in no way needs to be a discussion of legal terms, I will point out that these discussions didn't just start a week ago when you appeared but have been ongoing for some time. As such, we have already done this as Donoma mentioned above -- "Is someone going to submit an RFC?". If you read this article you'll see the neutral, US-based editor reaches the same conclusion that many of those who oppose Phoenix & Winslow's vision for this article already arrived at - that ideally there would be two articles - one about the generic (general) term and style called "ugg boot" and another about Ugg Australia. In fact, this neutral editor also expressed the view that the legal elements of this entry should be removed altogether and kept on the Deckers related page -- something that hasn't come to pass. I don't see how it's constructive to continue sending this article for discussion if the side whose viewpoint loses that discussion won't abide by the neutral opinion.Mandurahmike (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My issue with this page has always been its lack of factual accuracy when it comes to the usage of the term. Its not just “Deckers/people in certain countries might disagree with the idea of a generic term,” as suggested by Mike, it is the entirety of the English and non-English speaking world outside of Australia and New Zealand. I’ve also been distressed by the inability to verify the “age old term” argument. The article has taken as a given that the combination of the boots plus the term have been in common usage in Australia since the dawn of time. There hasn’t been any evidence presented that identifies sheepskin boots of any type being worn by surfers before the late 1960’s and no evidence of the present form existing prior to the 1970’s. Everything has been anecdotal. Indeed frequently some editor will chime in with the chorus of “Oh I remember it this way.” That’s not an acceptable source for anything, especially for Wikipedia.


 * I also support Phoenix’s edits. He’s done nothing more than use correct language to describe the status of the term in Australia and New Zealand (where the status is disputed), and internationally (where there is no legitimate dispute – clearly the term is a well-known trademark everywhere else in the world). I also like that he had inserted fresh information about Shane Stedman. It is a true statement that Stedman has been credited as an “inventor,” supported by three separate sources.


 * I don’t appreciate that Mike has stated that this article’s original intention was to describe a style of boot. I refer to the very first page that was posted way back in 2005 where the lede contained a promotion for Koolaburra (including a blurb about Pamela Anderson preferring their boots) as well as a description of the then ongoing legal dispute between Deckers and Koolaburra. So from the very start this article has deemed it notable to discuss the legal issues. At no point has that been questioned. I’m fine with including legal information but ALL relevant, accurate data ought to be used. That includes the IP Australia Fact Sheet and the Turkish decision which have confirmed that any arguable generic usage of the term is limited to the countries of Australia and New Zealand.--Factchk (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It definitely rates a mention as the legal drama is very much part of the history and present reality of ugg boots - whether we are talking about the style or the brand. This doesn't mean that the entry should be a chronology of legal disputes over the name. There's also a question of WEIGHT. Isn't it enough to point out that there have been disputes - well cited on another Wikipedia paged and linked from this one in the section we mention them, without turning the article into a persuasive essay about who is right and who is wrong? I don't even disagree with things like "The Turkish Decision". If ugg boots were unknown in that country prior to the arrival of Deckers then I can perfectly understand why they would deem the word not generic in Turkey. Does this mean we should be rattling on with a laundry-list of legal cases one way or the other? It's enough, for the purposes of this article, to simply mention the disputes briefly and link to them. Otherwise facts become a question of legality and ideology rather than ones of reality. I'd be similarly in favour of removing extensive elements that detail cases which have ruled against Deckers in Australia and New Zealand. They should be mentioned, but we don't need to turn the article into a tale of the court cases. The main drive of the article should be to provide a place to inform the reader about the style of ugg boots. This has been supported by neutral third parties in previous discussions, makes sense due to the fact that the content I seek to remove from here is covered, virtually verbatim, on other entries, and would turn this page into a useful resource - presenting the reader with the facts and allowing them to make their own decision based on their interpretation. This is far better than trying to persuade the reader one way or the other.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is NOT a court case.
I really feel like the come has come to get back to the roots of this entry and remove all the redundant mentions of court proceedings and other disputes. We've gotten to the point where things are so bogged down in legal back and forths that newcomers to the article are being confused as to its purpose (see above where new, anon editor assumes that "generic" as used in this article refers to the US legal application of the term - something quite understandable given the page as it currently stands looks like a transcript of a court case).

As the neutral editor commented during the last request for discussion - these court cases do not belong here and should be deleted and made available on the Deckers or a new Ugg Australia page. The only reference here should be a brief note that there have been legal disputes, with a link to the relevant sections on the other page.

Now -- I ask everyone to consider what an encylopaedia is for. It is to educate and inform. As someone who grew up in Australia and has lived in the US for the past five years, I have seen both sides of the "ugg boots" saga. On the one hand, I lived all my life where "ugg boots" was as natural term we used to describe this object, just as you'd call a steak a steak, an onion an onion, or a house a house. On the other hand, I have seen the US side of things, particularly in my role as a teacher where my students assume that "fake" ugg boots are any not made by Deckers and that ugg boots are a brand name and always have been.

Now, I ask you - who is more "educated and informed" about ugg boots. The person who assumes they only came into existence when they burst onto the scene through Deckers, or the one who is aware that in many countries they are a trademarked brand, but that they had their origin as a generic style (non legal sense!) of boot and are still considered such in their country of origin.

Arguing points of legality back and forth, irrelevant claims that courts in Australia have not said they are generic, and their ilk do nothing but obfuscate the history of ugg boots and make it difficult for a reader to inform themselves outside the narrow definition that Deckers wishes to promote. Wikipedia is not about promoting the interests of multinational corporations, but is about providing people with the best tools possible with which to inform themselves. Constant playing-down of historically and culturally established facts with a tsunami of references to court cases, largely irrelevant to Australia and New Zealand renders this article, at best, confusing to the newcomer who might otherwise have gained a spectrum view of ugg boots rather than a Deckers one. By all means mention Deckers and the role they have played in the world wide recognition of the style. By all means mention they have trademarked the term in many countries and that there have been disputes. By no means turn this itno an article about Deckers claims. Mandurahmike (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike, go back to the first entries for this page and you will see that there is a long history of legal disputes having a place on this page.--Factchk (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They absolutely have a place here. They do not, however, have a place as the main drive of the article.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The main drive of any article is always the first few paragraphs, and that of course is about the boot style and its history. And when I first started editing this article, it seemed to be all about the great victory by Australian manufacturers over Deckers at the IP Australia office, and none of the other cases in several other countries where the generic term defense failed. I've said this before: you have to take the bad with the good. If we're going to include the IP Australia case, we have to include all these others to demonstrate that in the rest of the world, it's a protected trademark. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at the state of the article the day before you first started editing it. This is the totality of "all about the great victory by Australian manufacturers over Deckers at the IP Australia office, and none of the other cases"."One of these manufacturers, Perth's Uggs-N-Rugs, appealed to Australian trademark regulators, who in 2006 ruled that 'ugg' is indeed a generic term and stated that it should be removed from the trademark register.[18] However, the ruling only applies in Australia with Deckers still owning the trademarks in other jurisdictions including the United States and the European Union. In 2005, the validity of the UGG trademark was challenged in Federal Court in California; the courts ruled for Deckers, stating that consumers in the United States consider Ugg to be a brand name.[19] A similar challenge was also rejected in the Netherlands.[20]" Over the next two weeks you had expanded the above and duplicated it in the lead, added Deckers sales figures to the lead (and edit warred to keep it there getting it locked) and added some 700 words to the article body on court cases that Deckers won, mostly regarding counterfeits. Wayne (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No Mike, I'm not assuming that it's the "US legal definition of the term." It's the legal definition of the term used worldwide, including IP Australia. See the IP Australia fact sheet. Also, I have noticed after reading all the cited sources that no one in Australia started using the word "generic" until the MacDougalls started getting ready to challenge the Deckers trademark. At that point, clearly on the advice of their trademark attorneys, the magic words "generic term" appeared prominently in the manufacturers' lexicon whenever they were interviewed. Except for the court cases and the IP Australia case, please find some other way to describe references to the boot style besides "generic." 63.171.91.193 (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * People have been using the word "generic" for years for all sorts of things - it isn't purely a legal term. IP Australia and other legal bodies don't get a say in dictionary definitions and the understandings of words. You could argue that it gets to decide if something is "legally generic", however, in this case we are referring to the concept of something being generic or general - We aren't talking about "unbranded products" we are talking about the standard name given to something by the English language. Again, we aren't talking about "generic" in terms of branded products versus unbranded ones - we are talking about generic terms used to describe things. If someone trademarks the word "steak" that doesn't mean that people have been referring to a "generic version of a product" for years as "steak" - it means that this is just what it was called. Ugg boots are and were CALLED ugg boots. Just like you call the big hot thing in the sky the Sun. Ugg boots were ugg boots in exactly the same way "hiking boots" are hiking boots. They aren't a "generic version of the hiking boots brand". That's what you call all hiking boots. By attempting to have generic in this case mean "generic brand" you're taking one discursive meaning and superimposing it over anotherMandurahmike (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing about the dictionary definition. I'm arguing about how we choose to use the word "generic" in a Wikipedia article. We must avoid confusing readers whenever we can. In the second half of the article there are several references using the word "generic," referring to the legal term. In the first half there are also several uses of the word "generic," meaning something else. We cannot assume that the reader will be able to distinguish them. So we must choose another way to say it in the first half. There are several ways to convey the meaning you want to convey, without using the term "generic." 63.171.91.193 (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd tentatively support inserting something like "common name" to clear up any confusion, although, as I have stated above, I would rather see much of the legal back and forthing from this article truncated down to a reference since it's more or less a repeat of what we have on the "Ugg Australia" page where it more appropriately belongs. The only problem with this is that in the court cases the arguments are about "generic" in terms of "common name" and not generic in terms of branding, so this seems like the potential to further complicate matters.Mandurahmike (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If the title and hatnote at the top clarify that this article is about "Australian ugg boots," and the history of the ugg boot style in Australia and New Zealand, I have no problem with summarizing all cases outside Australia and New Zealand in a single sentence (something like "In all other countries efforts to use the Ugg name as a generic term have failed court challenges") with a reference to UGG Australia. But the article is about "Ugg boots." And the hatnote says, "This is about the style of footwear." So as it stands, the entire worldwide history of the footwear must be included. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why we need two articles. If we had so much notable material that it wouldn't fit into one article, then we'd need two. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Much of the material at UGG Australia duplicates what we have here, so a merge wouldn't expand this one much, and readers would get the whole story in one article. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As everyone has continually stated on the talk page, this article is really supposed to be about the history and experience of “ugg boots” in Australia, and therefore I do think it makes sense to change the title to “Australian ugg boots,” along with some similar changes in the lede and throughout the article. As it reads right now, it makes sense to some people in Australia but not to people in the rest of the world who recognize UGG as brand.  Currently, the opening paragraphs speak in very broad terms, which reach far beyond the intended scope of this article, and seem to be what is causing the concern.  This would allow any discussion about the general international fame of the style to be appropriately put on the Sheepskin boots page, but with all the Australian-specific history remaining here.  Also, provided the page actually focuses on Australian ugg boots, I would even support moving some if not all of the case decisions to the UGG Australia page.  However, with the current purported scope of the page, they should remain there.  The issue with these pages is and always has been one of correctness and precision, and I think change this would be a good way to remove some of the confusion here.--Factchk (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this article is about "ugg boots", not "ugg boots in Australia". The style exists beyond the borders of Australia - hence UGG Australia. As we've discussed many times before, "sheepskin boots" is a far more general term, which fails to distinguish between the specific style which is the topic of this article and other footwear made out of sheepskin. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then we can't remove any of the court cases. And in fact, any court case worldwide where a counterfeiter tries to use the generic term defense in the future must be added here. Why don't we just merge the UGG Australia article here, Bilby, as the anon editor has suggested? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Normally I would support merging the UGG Australia article here as it would require almost no modification of this article. However, past experience here indicates there would be considerable effort to turn the page into a promotion for Deckers rather than a general article on the style of boot with minimal use of specific brand names. I think that Factchk has the wrong end of the stick. This article should educate readers that Ugg boots are the style of boot, not just a brand. Confusion through ignorance is not a reason to compromise what is currently a reasonably NPOV article. I have no problem with including Australian and American court cases where the generic defense is used legitimately but all counterfeit and foreign cases should be removed as they are only relevant to the Decker brand. Wayne (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At Wikipedia we describe the things as they are, not as we believe they should be, and you seem to be advocating the latter. In 145 countries, "Ugg boots" is a brand name. In two small countries, it describes a boot style. The Wikipedia articles that deal with this subject should reflect this reality. "Foreign" cases, such as the Turkish and Dutch cases, do have a place here if the counterfeiters attempt to use what has been labeled a "generic term defense" and, if Deckers loses one of those cases, establishing the generic term in some country other than Australia or New Zealand, I'm sure Wayne would want it included in this article. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confusing "reality" and "cultural discourse". Wikipedia, for possibly the fiftieth time in this discussion section, is not about what people, courts, or countries THINK, it is about, as you say "reality". The "reality" you speak of is the reality people perceive - NOT actual reality. You can't alter reality by trademarking a name. If I decided to trademark the word "tsunami" and market it as a refreshing beverage and sell it here in Las Vegas, does that mean tsunamis cease to be tsunamis? This is exactly what you're arguing, that ugg boots ceased to be ugg boots when Deckers bought the trademark. This is not the case - when Deckers bought the trade mark ugg boots became two things. Firstly they were "ugg boots" - what they always were, and they also became "Ugg Boots (TM)". Now, I'm not going to argue the logic of such a thing here as this is not the forum for it; however, let's imagine something quintessentially American like "Root Beer" became a massive worldwide hit as a brandname and Wikipedians and "Root Beer Refreshment Corporation" wanted to effectively turn the root beer article here into something about the brand? Would that make much sense? Wouldn't it be more sensible to have two articles - one about Root Beer (TM) and one about the original beverage that's had the natural and generic name of "root beer" since the year dot? You are not seeking to promote "reality" on Wikipedia - what you are trying to do is promote the reality according to Deckers.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 63.171.91.193 does not seem to understand what counterfeit means. A generic defense can never win in a counterfeit case unless the item is found to be not counterfeit. It is impossible to counterfeit a style of boot, you can only counterfeit a brand therefor such cases are only relevant to an article about the brand. Wayne (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A consensus of editors has agreed for several months that if the generic term defense is used, the case belongs here. After all, this article is all about the generic term (or the phrase "ugg boots" in common usage). Since the IP Australia case is here, the other cases belong here too. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I contend that the counterfeit section doesn't belong here at all. The grounds for including it is very tenuous. Just because someone dodgily tried to rip off Deckers designs and claimed "genericism" doesn't really mean we need a section about the counterfeiting of Deckers products in the generic ugg boots entry. La Cheapa's defence relied on the flawed notion that DECKERS DESIGNS could be considered generic, something never in question and something that has absolutely zero to do with the idea of ugg boots as a style being generic. All the inclusion of this section does is blurs the distinction between style and brand/proprietary design which is exactly the sort of thing we should be trying to steer away from with this entry.Mandurahmike (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to get the article locked again, but with your non consensus version in place? I left a few of the minor edits but reverted the ones that had no consensus. Regarding my edits: The quality section has yet to gain consensus. Deleted. P&W argued that lawyers (Deckers) must tell the truth so can always be used as RS. Yet he now deletes what a lawyer said because it is an "allegation in a lawsuit, by a partisan litigant". Hynes is not involved in the litigation, it is a report in a company magazine on legal issues. I removed the wikilink for "generic" as WP does not have a page for the dictionary definition. Wayne (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Massive revert — please explain
I edited several sections of the article with a single edit. Bilby reverted it. Let's discuss it. My proposed language "where many companies use trademarks that include the UGG term" is a fact — by searching the Australian trademark office database, this can be confirmed. Bilby's claim that the term "is considered generic" is not supported by any source.

I repeat: Bilby's claim that the term "is considered generic" is not supported by any source.

"Considered generic" by who, exactly? IP Australia? The reliable sources say the opposite. IP Australia explicitly refused to declare the term to be generic. The only people for whom "Ugg boots" is "considered generic" are Australian manufacturers and counterfeiters. And as we have seen in the Dutch case, in at least one instance "Australian manufacturer" is synonymous with "counterfeiter."

The IP Australia decision, which is what Bilby will likely rely on, did not make a determination as to whether the mark was generic. It removed the UGH-BOOTS registration based solely on the grounds of non-use. It further stated that only a court can remove a registration because the mark is generic, and that no Australian court has done that for this mark. Above, in the "Bias" section, Factcheck refers to a fact sheet issued by the decision making body: IP Australia. In the fact sheet, IP Australia explains the decision that was made. I fail to understand why this source cannot be used in this article.

Bilby, why are you removing facts that are not in dispute? And why do you keep restoring this claim that IP Australia declared the term to be generic — when it made no such ruling, when it was legally incapable of making such a ruling, and no reliable source says that it did? There is no basis for removing my statement that the UGH-BOOT registration was removed from the Australian registry for non-use. This is a fact.

There is no basis for your insertion of the statement that the Australian trademark regulators "ruled 'ugg' is indeed a generic term." This simply did not happen – indeed, regulators do not have the authority to make such a ruling as confirmed in the fact sheet referenced above. Please post a reliable source that supports this claim, or stop reverting me. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. This will be long, because on your one edit, described as "Another Australian case has just been uncovered" you a) added another Australian case, and b) made significant changes to multiple other paragraphs without noting this in your edit summary. But so be it.
 * Change 1:
 * There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether "ugg" is a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection, especially in the region of origin. Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds the UGG trademark in 145 countries worldwide. Notable exceptions are Australia and New Zealand where the term is considered generic.
 * Changed to
 * There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether "ugg" is a protected trademark or a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection. Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds exclusive rights to the UGG trademark in 145 countries worldwide. Notable exceptions are Australia and New Zealand where many companies use trademarks that include the UGG term.
 * We have long held here, without any prior problems, that ugg boot is a generic term in Australia. Your change on this deliberately inserts a particular POV. Sources making that point include, and  . Most importantly, the trademark case which you say didn't find that it was a generic term, states "The evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the terms (ugg, ugh and ug boots) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods." You know this, and it has never been an issue. The trademark was removed for non-use, but it was also found that the term was generic in Australia. Note that Australian's don't use UGG, but ugg.
 * Change 2:
 * The origins of the ugg boot style are disputed, with both Australia and New Zealand claiming to have been the origin of the footwear. Sheepskin boots were known in rural Australia during the 1920s. While it is not clear when manufacturing started, by 1933 ugg boots were being manufactured by Blue Mountains Ugg Boots, and Mortels Sheepskin Factory was making the boots from the late 1950s.
 * Changed to:
 * The origins of the ugg boot style are disputed, with both Australia and New Zealand claiming to have been the origin of the footwear. Sheepskin boots were known in rural Australia during the 1920s. While it is not clear when manufacturing started, by 1933 sheepskin boots were being manufactured by Blue Mountains Ugg Boots, and Mortels Sheepskin Factory was making the boots from the late 1950s. Australian surfer Shane Steadman is credited with having invented Ugh boots. In 1971, Steadman registered UGH-BOOTS as an Australian trademark.
 * Blue Mountains Ugg Boots specifically claimed to be making ugg-style boots, not just sheepskin boots. Again, you are trying to insert a POV. Second, your claim that Steadman invented them is unsourced, controversial, and, as you are aware, extensively disputed: even by Shane Steadman.
 * Change 3: You added:
 * In 2007, the Australian Federal Court granted an injunction against a seller of counterfeit boots that ordered the seller to cease infringing Deckers' UGG trademark, and awarded Deckers' monetary damages; the sellers failed to comply with the injunction and were found in contempt. The worst offender, Vladimir Vaysman, was imprisoned for a 10-year sentence.
 * This is a counterfeit issue. This is not about using the term "ugg", but using the full "Ugg Australia" name with a near identical logo to pass off boots as being Decker's boots. In addition, it relates to online sales on eBay. As you have previously shown, you understand that court cases relating to the generic term defence may have a place here, and that counterfeiting issues belong on UGG Australia or Deckers. This is out of place.
 * If you are going to make massive changes, bring them to talk first. If you are going to add court cases that have almost nothing to do with the scope of this article, consider adding them to the articles where they apply, instead. And if you are going to insert unsourced incorrect and controversial claims, take them off wiki. Sorry for the length of this response. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the terms (ugg, ugh and ug boots) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods." Please show me in this sentence where the phrase "generic term" is used. You also cite three sources:, and . Your first link is to an article in The Daily Telegraph (UK) quoting Brian Iverson of Blue Mountain Ugg Boots saying, "Every Australian knows that ugg's a generic term for sheepskin boots." Brian Iverson is not IP Australia, the article doesn't mention IP Australia at all and, in fact, the article was published two years before the decision by IP Australia.


 * Your second link is to Wall Street Journal Magazine, a companion publication to America's premier daily financial paper, The Wall Street Journal. That article says "the MacDougalls ... set out to prove that 'ugg' was a generic term." Regarding the decision by IP Australia, the article says very clearly, "Technically, the U.S. company lost only its 'ugh-boot' trademark in Australia due to nonuse." It does not say that IP Australia declared "Ugg," "Ugg boots," or anything else to be a generic term.


 * Your third link is to the New Zealand Herald. There is an ambiguous statement that IP Australia "agreed" with the MacDougalls, and a clear statement that "The name is to be removed from the register of trademarks." But any understanding that IP Australia "agreed" it's a generic term is easily refuted. IP Australia's own fact sheet about the case clearly states that they did not and cannot make a formal finding that "ugg" is a generic term. Only an Australian court can do that. Which brings us back around, Bilby, to the question that you avoided answering in your lengthy response: why can't IP Australia's own fact sheet be used as a source in this article?


 * What you've done here is make claims in the article, and added links to sources; but when anyone reads the sources, they don't support the claims. So the claims are unsupported by reliable sources and should be removed. Your friend Wayne here did the same thing at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations with such steadfast and relentless regularity that admins ended up stubbing the whole article. Is that what you want? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So you wish to argue that when IP Australia says "The evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the terms (ugg, ugh and ug boots) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods." this does not mean that it is a generic term? That's a pretty big stretch to read it any other way. Exactly why you insist on doing so, when the idea that it is a generic term in Australia is so accepted, is somewhat beyond me. This isn't where any dispute should lie. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a stretch. The phrase "generic term" has a very specific meaning in legal terminology as used by trademark attorneys, courts, and IP authorities such as IP Australia. Read the fact sheet. I repeat, IP Australia explicitly said that it did not and cannot make a ruling that "Ugg" or "Ugg boots" is a generic term. I ask again: why can't the fact sheet, issued by IP Australia about its own decision, be used as a source in this article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just getting disruptive. You are edit warring to maintain disputed content, including clearly false and unsourced claims, while complaining about a point that has never been in dispute. WP:BRD does not mean "be bold, then keep on reverting until you win" - if you make bold changes, which you did, and they are disputed, you need to find consensus before adding them back.- Bilby (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is just getting absurd. The edits here, particularly the ones not mentioned in the edit note, whether intentionally or otherwise, clearly serve, across the board, to water-down the concept of ugg boots as a generic term. This, by very definition, is POV editing. Have reverted these edits once again - the onus is on the instigator of such major edits to demonstrate consensus, not on those who oppose them, who appear to be in the majority anyway, to demonstrate a lack of one. Your current crop of edits are the most across the board POV ones I have seen in the history of this article. Mandurahmike (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Still no explanation of why we can't use the fact sheet from IP Australia as a source. I've asked this question in every post in this section of the Talk page. I see responses from three different Australian editors, all of you being very evasive about this question. I'll ask again: why can't we use the IP Australia fact sheet as a source in this article? I'm not trying "to water down the concept of ugg boots as a generic term." That's what IP Australia and other government IP authorities around the world have done, as reflected in the sources. We must report what the sources say. Even more importantly, we must not include anything that might mislead readers to believe any so-called "fact" that the sources did not say. And the sources did not say that IP Australia declared the term to be generic. The fact sheet says the opposite. Why can't we use it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the apparent consensus (claimed by Australian editors) is not a real consensus. Much of this occurred on a Sunday evening in America. Most American editors were offline, watching a football game. But in Australia, it was Monday morning. Australian trademark attorneys and marketing executives were in their offices, protecting their clients' interests. Now that it's Monday morning in America, let's see what develops. I have produced what I feel is a fair compromise which removed the Australian counterfeiting case, but preserved other edits by Phoenix, since they follow where the sources lead us. The sources do not say that IP Australia reported the term "ugg boots" as a generic term. So this article should not make that claim. Also, I would like to see a link to the IP Australia fact sheet. Since Phoenix and Factchk want to use it as a source, we must review it. I ask them to provide a link. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As you have insisted on returning disputed material without first seeking consensus to include it, can you at least remove the false claim that Steadman invented ugg boots? This reverting - especially claiming to do it to include one thing, while sneaking in a whole lot more - is not how this should be approached, but I think it is reasonable to request that we remove false and unsourced claims from your revert. - Bilby (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claim that Steadman invented "ugh boots." I would like to see a source for this before restoring it. "Sneaking in" material at Wikipedia is impossible. Making an edit while failing to discuss it on the Talk page and in the edit summary is something that happens very often, usually with no intention to "sneak" anything in. When an important factual claim is made that is unsupported by reliable sources, and is actually reported by some other editors to contradict a reliable source, no prior discussion is necessary. It should be removed immediately. I'm not an attorney, but I see no reason to disbelieve Phoenix when he says that "generic term" is legal terminology that has a specific meaning in trademark law. The limited amount of reading I've done tends to support him. I think we need to be much more careful about our use of such terms. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't believe that the massive number of changes Phoenix and Winslow made, with the edit summary "Another Australian case has just been uncovered" count as sneaking things in? When most had nothing to do with the court case? So be it.
 * In regard to sources:
 * "The McDougalls had appealed to the organisation that regulates trademarks in Australia, claiming that ugg - originally an abbreviation of ugly, so it is believed - was a generic term. Yesterday they received the news that the regulator, IP Australia, agreed."
 * "But Intellectual Property Office NZ spokeswoman Shirley Flaherty said the trademark awarded to Deckers did not include footwear. She said ugg boots were a generic term along with alternative spellings such as ug and ugh and could not be trademarked. "But there is the option for traders to apply for a logo trademark that might contain a stylised version." ("Ugg safe name for sheepskin boots", Dominion Post, 12/7/2008)
 * "This week, the McDougalls received the news that the name is to be removed from the Australian register of trademarks, meaning it is now a generic name. " ("Aussie manufacturers reclaim ugg boots", Bulletin Wire, 17/01/2008)
 * "It was reported last week that the company, thwarted in 2003 by the national trademark regulator who ruled the term "ugg" was generic, may try again to copyright it in Australia." ("Brand owner puts the boot in on Ugg", The Age, 8/6/2010)
 * "American company Deckers tried to claim the name in 2003, but the national trademark regulator ruled the term was generic and could apply to any kind of sheepskin boot" ("Ugg under copyright threat", AAP, 2/6/2010)
 * We can find more, but the point is that this isn't an issue, and never was. For years that aspect of this article hasn't been in dispute, and there are no reasons why that should be now - other than simple disruption. This is removing the focus from the issues that actually are in dispute. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The headline "Ugg under copyright threat" and the phrase "may try again to copyright it in Australia" are telltale signs that these may not be reliable sources. This has never been about copyright law. It's about trademark law. I'm not a lawyer, but even I can tell the difference. What about this IP Australia fact sheet that Factchk and Phoenix have mentioned? Why aren't we using it? If it's from IP Australia, wouldn't that be a reliable source? 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you find AAP, The Age and The Independent to be unreliable, but feel that Today Tonight is fine. Be that as it may, as far as I am aware, the Fact Sheet is no longer available, but it stated that a court case would be needed to return a legal finding that ugg boots is a generic term, even though the findings in the earlier case did come to that conclusion (in a non-legally binding sense). I have no problems, though, with refraining from describing the IP Australia findings that way, because it could be misleading to suggest that this was a legal finding, and I'm happy with the current wording for that section. I do have problems with pretending, in spite of numerous reliable sources, (including at least one academic paper), that the term is not a generic term in Australia and New Zealand. - Bilby (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't claimed that The Independent or the AAP is unreliable. But I do worry about relying so much on the works of Kathy Marks, whether they are in The Independent or elsewhere. She is not the only writer who has written about this subject and she's just a journalist, not a trademark attorney or an expert of some other sort. Apparently she has no more expertise in these matters than you or me, but roughly half the article is derived from her works. The phrase "ugg boots" is in common usage in Australia and New Zealand to refer to a style of boot, like "cowboy boot" in America, and the article does say so very clearly in more than one place. But it appears to me that the phrase "generic term" has a specific meaning in the law, like "habeas corpus" or "manslaughter," and we need to be careful about that. Brian Iverson's selection of that particular phrase, when he was being interviewed by Wall Street Journal magazine, may have been advised by an attorney. I suspect that such phrases do not normally appear in conversations among non-attorneys without some prompting. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Terry, Andrew; Forrest, Heather (2007-2007) "Where's the Beef - Why Burger king Is Hungry Jack's in Australia and other Complications in Building a Global Franchise Brand", Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 28, p 188. "Despite their long heritage, the term "ugg" (or any of the common variations including "ugh" and "ug") was not registered as a trademark until 1971, presumably because it was considered by manufacturers and consumers to be a generic term. ... What is more surprising is that a name which was widely regarded as generic-because it had become the common term associated with a particular category of goods and lacked the capacity to distinguish the product of the trademark owner from that of other companies-was not denied registration in the first place." Legally, the "generic term status" has not been tested in court. This, though, does not mean that it isn't the case, and we have so many sources supporting that view there is nothing wrong with saying that it is a generic term in Australia and New Zealand. We can't say that it has been tested in court, but we can say that it is considered to be generic. This isn't like accusing someone of a crime - we can rely on sources to show that it is generic in the normal sense off the word. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, please see my entry below. "Generic term" is legal terminology. No court in any jurisdiction has ever declared that "Ugg" or "Ugh" is a generic term, and many have declared that it is not. Please notice the word "presumably" in the law journal passage you've excerpted, Bilby. Phoenix has offered a fair compromise: find a different way to say the same thing. For example, "The term has entered common usage in Australia and New Zealand to describe a boot style." There are several ways to say this thing you're trying to say, without using the phrase "generic term." 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A major problem I have with these "edits that have been restored" is that there is no need for them and, as discussed above, they appear to be included a little more than attempts to dilute the notion that "ugg boots" are considered generic anywhere in the world whatsoever. The older version clearly stated that in Australia and NZ the term is considered generic - There are countless references backing this up and one was referenced here. Now the section says "There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether "ugg" is a protected trademark or a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection. Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds exclusive rights to the UGG trademark in 145 countries worldwide.[2] Notable exceptions are Australia and New Zealand where many companies use trademarks that include the UGG term." -- this shifts the focus of this section away from the notion of an unambiguous generic use of the term in Australia and NZ to the idea of --trademarks-- We hear about the argument about generic vs trademark protection and then shift into Australian companies using TRADEMARKS using the term. As someone very familiar with the subject and the history of the article I know what it is talking about, but a casual reader is not going to read it that way - it's going to sound like "Some claim that the term is generic and decide to use it in their trademark anyway" - this reinforces the idea that the term is a trademark (since both Deckers and the generics are using it as a trademark according to the current state of the article) and makes it seem like this is some sort of rogue situation. The subtle and needless rework of the wording in this small paragraph has drastically altered the meaning that may be taken from this section. We had an into which clearly stated the two situations - Deckers copyright and long-time genericism in Australia and NZ - now we have a situation that's going to cause misunderstandings at best or require further research at worst in order for the reader to comprehend the reality of the situation.Mandurahmike (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted the Vaysman court case because it did not involve a generic term defense. Wayne (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed all the problematic edits P&W did. Please DO NOT keep adding edits that have been rejected bthy consensus. Wayne (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They haven't been rejected by consensus. They've been rejected by you and Bilby. There are many other editors on this page and they haven't weighed in yet. Don't pronounce judgment until they have. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These edits have been rejected by two editors with tacit approval of two others who prefer to comment rather than edit. You are the lone voice and making threats to stubb the article if the majority of editors dont change their minds and agree with you may have worked on a controversial article but will get you nowhere here. Discuss what you want and make a case. If your edit has any merit it can be used. Wayne (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it really be such a bad thing if the article was reduced down to verifiable, sourced information about ugg boots themselves, and all the corporate propaganda (from all sides, although the vast majority currently in the article is that introduced by the Deckers editors) excised? Such an article would be much more useful as an encyclopaedia article than the mess it has currently become after years of corporate appeasement. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

IP Australia fact sheet
I've found the following page which contains a lot of information about the decisions by IP Australia. At the bottom of the page, they reference a "Fact Sheet - Ugg Boots" which was apparently on the IP Australia website at one time, but has been removed. Deckers refers to the Ugg boots fact sheet on their website - scroll down to the bottom of this page. The Ugg boots fact sheet is also referenced elsewhere and on an Australian law firm's website, one of the bullet points states, "Recent news accounts concerning the decision have been inaccurate and highly misleading. In response, Deckers takes note of the following: The non-use decision is not a binding legal decision that UGH (or UGG, UG) are generic terms." Middleton's apparently represented Deckers. Couldn't they get into a lot of trouble if they misrepresent the nature of the IP Australia decision? I think their description of it should be considered the most reliable source. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a scan of the IP Australia fact sheet. It was linked on the Deckers website page that I linked above. On the second page the fact sheet states, "If a trade mark has become generic, a case may be made before a court for removal of that mark from the register of trade marks. Only the court system can give a definitive answer about whether a term is generic. The question of whether the term UGG or UGH is generic has not been considered by the courts." 63.171.91.193 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither Deckers nor their lawyers can be a RS for this due to COI. FYI, Phoenix and Winslow has successfully argued that scans of legal documents and reporting of those documents in reliable sources can not be considered a reliable source and that the original must be used. That was the sole reason the Franklin article was stubbed. The article currently conforms to the sources we have and there is no mention that IP Australia said the terms are generic so what exactly is the problem? Wayne (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Having just read the Deckers scan I notice that this articles IP Australia paragraph reads exactly the same as the fact sheet. If it was any closer it would be plagiarism! What exactly are you claiming is wrong with that paragraph?

If I'm not mistaken Wayne, for the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations article, you were claiming (with unreliable sources) that several living persons had engaged in a child prostitution ring, and were then engaged in a successful cover-up. So of course WP:BLP requires the very best sourcing. Here we have no such BLP concerns, and rather than an investigative reporter we have two firms. The Middletons law firm (and Deckers) would be subject to severe professional sanctions if they were to misrepresent or forge a document from a government IP authority. So I think it's only fair to say that in this case, the scan is acceptable as a reliable source. I look forward to others expressing an opinion on this matter. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Raising any issues with the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations is inappropriate. - Bilby (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP Australia fact sheet is mirrored to a very large degree on this site and is also reported extensively on this site. TheNewInventors.com and Australian Trademark Law Blog don't have any COI, in fact if they have any bias at all it would be in favor of the Australian manufacturers, but their reporting is remarkably similar to the descriptions by Middletons and the scan by Deckers. Sorry but I cannot agree this this is an unreliable source. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have stated above, the IP Australia Fact Sheet describes the status in law - whether or not it is a generic term has not been tested in court. Shockingly, courts have also failed to test most of the English language. We cannot say "legally, 'ugg boots' has been found to be a generic term in Australia." That's the point of the Fact Sheet. But this doesn't mean that ugg boots is not a generic term, and, as you say, this is not a BLP - making that claim, based on reliable sources, is fine. Doubly so if we make it clear that it has not been tested in court.
 * Note that in the NZ case, the trademark registration body made it clear that an application to register ugg boots would be denied, because it is a generic term. It would not have to be tested in courts at all, as it would be denied outright. Again, this is a non-issue. - Bilby (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As i've said in the following section, the phrase "generic term" is legal terminology, and we must be careful about how we use it in the article. Otherwise this becomes an article about the legal arguments presented by Australian boot manufacturers. It wouldn't be notable enough to have its own article. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Generic term" is not legal terminology. It is a concept that may be applied in law to determine legality which also has broader applications and meanings outside of legal context.Mandurahmike (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of word generic in 3rd para

 * Can't say I'm too thrilled with the way "Australia and New Zealand where the term is considered generic" in the lead has changed to "Australia and New Zealand where the term is a common descriptive term for the boot style" - Isn't this just s slimy way of saying the same thing while avoding the use of the word "generic" and changing the whole nuance of the sentence? - because "common descriptive terms" for something ARE "generic terms". I think it's important to point out that the term IS considered generic in Australia rather than simply used as a "common descriptor" because the way it's worded now could easily be read to mean "People don't really care in Australia and just call any old thing an ugg boot". I feel that this change is just another example of the subtle watering-down of the concept of genericism in AU and NZ. A reader not familiar with the history of this article could be forgiven for believing in Australia the term "ugg boot" is used as a common descriptor the way Americans use the words "Kleenex" and "Hoover". An example more familiar to Australians would be the way "Glad Wrap" is a common descriptor used for cling wrap - even though it's not a generic term, but a brand name. I think it's important to point out that the term IS considered generic in Australia so we can draw a distinction between the situations with Kleenex, Hoover, Glad Wrap etc and ugg boots in Australia. I feel it was a needless change that has muddied the point the sentence was making.Mandurahmike (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is a bad change. Ugg boot is not a "common descriptive term". That is just very slippery wording to avoid using the term "generic", but avoiding it is unnecessary. 'Ugg boot' is simply non-trademarked and non-trademarkable in AU/NZ. That does make it generic in the commonly understood sense of the word generic. This isn't an article about a law or a brand, but about a kind of shoe, so we can use the term "generic" without confusion. It should be reverted to what it was before. Donama (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That change was made by Phoenix and Winslow against consensus and was locked in when the page was protected. I was just given a copy of the IP Australia case and they did say the boots are considered generic in Australia so there is no problem with the words use."'The Yellow Pages, Internet, magazine and dictionary uses of these terms make it quite clear that these terms are generic – they are the most immediate and natural ways in which to refer to a particular style of sheepskin boot. The orthographical variations are such that I regard the different spellings as being interchangeable and not materially affecting my considerations one way or the other...I am forced to the conclusion that whatever identity the term UGH-BOOTS might have as a trade mark must derive from the hyphenated nature of the expression. It is apparent that any loss of the hyphen or misspelling (or other variation from the registered trade mark) by the opponent so that it is rendered UGH BOOTS or UG BOOTS or UGG BOOTS must necessarily involve a change to the identity of the trade mark since these terms are all generic. - Trade Marks Hearings Pg 10 16 January 2006" Then we have two reasons given in the final findings for rejecting Deckers case; "onus on owner of trade mark to show use within relevant period – use of generics by owner". Wayne (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't a "slimy way of saying the same thing." It's a more accurate way of saying the same thing, since IP Australia has declined to call the term "generic" (a legal term) in its fact sheet on the matter. We do have a copy of the fact sheet available for all editors to see. However, we do not have a copy of the IP Australia case itself available for all editors to see. For that we must rely on Wayne's representations. And I'd like to know how he got his hands on it, if he's unconnected in any way with the Australia companies or their attorneys and marketing firms.


 * Wayne has previously run into a great deal of difficulty regarding his claims about allegedly reliable sources at WP:RSN. The initial discussion was unclear and involved only a few editors; I solicited input from several veteran editors whom I had never encountered before, and had never worked on the article being discussed, but they had participated extensively at WP:RSN. Wayne condemned this as canvassing, but the editors were previously uninvolved. And they were unanimous in declaring Wayne's favorite source to be unreliable. Later, due to Wayne's persistent inclusion of unsourced and unreliable material, admins stubbed the entire article.


 * I'm not gloating about "winning" that one, because I didn't win. Wikipedia won. I believe it's best to remember this history, and make sure other editors on this page are fully aware of it. This case decision that Wayne claims to have should be available to all editors for review. And we should know how he obtained it. Also, I'd like to know how Wayne reconciles its quoted statement with the IP Australia fact sheet, explicitly making it clear that only a court (not IP Australia) can declare a term to be generic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the IP Australia pdf, I approached a contact at the local University and they got me a copy. I have mailed a copy to Donama so that the accuracy of the copy/paste above can be confirmed. Wayne (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You have already been warned about refering to unrelated disputes to support your case here. Especially as you are misrepresenting what was found in that case. For example, my "favourite source" was in fact first introduced to the article by yourself and you only objected to it when other editors used it for other claims you did not like. It should be noted that despite you now claiming that material "should be available to all editors for review", when you gained access to the reliable primary sources that the rejected source used (thus enabling the article to be reliably sourced) you refused to share them with WP and this was the reason the entire article was stubbed. It was definitely not a win for WP as it is more fodder for WPs critics.


 * Your habit of revising history is again exhibited here. I linked Nick Bryant's site only because he had been mentioned as an "investigative reporter" and his book was mentioned. I did not use his website or book to support any factual statements in the article, because it was a BLP and they were self-published; and after leaving the article to work on something else for a while, was astonished upon my return to learn that you had completely rewritten the article using Nick Bryant as the primary source. He's a conspiracy theorist. I didn't get copies of the reliable sources until about a month after the article was stubbed, due to your mountain of unsourced and poorly sourced WP:FRINGE edits. The edit histories of that article and its Talk page will bear all of this out. I haven't made sources for that article available to all, because I'm really not ready to resume working on it yet. I'd like to get this one right first. And who should I find here but you? On this article, what part of "should be available to all editors for review" don't you understand? Scan the IP Australia case ruling, please and post a link. There are many websites available to do it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am amused to see such a comment on the subject of conspiracy theories in light of this interesting conspiracy theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ugg_boots&diff=454165483&oldid=454163246 . Daveosaurus (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the watering down of the idea of genericism (remember, we are NOT talking about the connotations of the world from within legal discourse -- this is not a courtroom) seems to be constantly aimed at pushing the viewpoint that prior to Deckers "ugg boots" as a generic term, the natural way of referring to this style of sheepskin boots may not have actually existed OR has somehow ceased to exist. No court decision or lack thereof can alter reality. We've got countless solid sources that prove the generic use (in the commonly understood sense of the word - NOT - the legal one). Changing Wikipedia articles to question established history is nothing short of revisionism. We can't retcon the history and greater reality of ugg boots to fit with current world opinion.Mandurahmike (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, this is not a courtroom. But we have to obey what the courts say and, where relevant and notable, we should report what they say. The article provides the mid-20th century history of the term "uggs" very clearly and Mike, I'd oppose any attempt to blur that history in this article. So stop pretending otherwise, please. I believe however, that use of the word "generic" in an article that discusses trademark law AT ALL should restrict use of that word to an accurate discussion of the trademark cases. It is legal terminology, and the ready availability of other phrases, i.e. "descriptive term" or "common usage," for other parts of the article means there really is no need to use the word "generic" in other parts of this article. Why fight about it, unless you're determined to use this Wikipedia article to water down Deckers trademark rights in 145 other countries? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia and this article should have nothing to do with anyone's "trademark rights" be it "watering-down" or otherwise. Deckers has their own article about their trademark. The day we see people continually in the Deckers and Ugg Australia entries trying to downplay the validity of trademarks is the day that you will have the slightest leg to stand on. At the moment we have more than adequate coverage of Deckers trademarked version "Ugg Boots" at their own page and constant attacks on the entry trying to explain the meaning of the word, concept, and boot style in the countries of origin. The zeal with which you approach your repeated, without consensus changes to this article, along with attempts to discredit other editors is beginning to seriously impact your credibility and I'd be very surprised if there's many editors here who aren't struggling in maintaining the AGF guideline with regard to your actions which have resulted in the locking of this article on two occasions. Again, one last time - Wikipedia is not about "protecting someone's trademark rights" or pushing a particular point of view or reality. It is about depicting all realities as they exist. What you are doing here is, effectively, engaging in history wars by attempting to retroactively downplay the history of ugg boots as a generic concept. None of the editors who have opposed your actions seek to expunge Deckers from this article - they are a critical component of the history of the ugg boot style. The controversy and legal battles surrounding is absolutely relevant to the history of the STYLE of boot. The problem we keep coming back to is the edits you make which seek to - rather than present the facts and allow the reader to interpret them -- stifle the information by use of legal technicalities and court decisions. Seeking to remove the concept of ugg boots as a generic term is nothing more than a petty and obvious attempt to subtly shift the connotations to be taken from the lead paragraphs - denying the reader the information they need to understand the full story of the ugg boot - both generic Australian/NZ and Deckers. Your interpretation of "what is right" is no more valid than the rest of us and your lack of respect for consensus with regard to making significant changes needs to end.Mandurahmike (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You claim "we have to obey what the courts say". If the courts wish to make any order as to how this article should be worded, they should contact the Wikimedia Foundation as per WP:NLT. Until such a time, Wikipedia is not censored. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Channel 7 testing
I've removed the section:
 * Independent testing by Channel 7 in Perth, Western Australia ranked one brand of Australian synthetic ugg boots made in China, Aussie Sheep and Wool Products, best in quality; Deckers Ugg boots, which are also made in China, are the highest quality boots made of genuine sheepskin; and all the Australian made sheepskin boots, such as Emu and Mortels, were ranked behind Deckers. Tony Woolgar of Australia's Textile Clothing and Footwear Union told Channel 7 he was surprised by the results: "The big concern is that some of the ugg boots are actually falling apart because they haven't been glued together properly or the stitching is loose it's of real concern. ... Well I would have thought the Aussie product would have stood up to the test because I have always thought the product we produce in Australia is far superior to the imported products."

I have no hassles if someone wants to put it back, it just feels to me that there are a number of comparative reviews of the different boots, and picking out one is a tad too POV. In this case the tests were done in 2004, and focused on destruction testing. I felt that it was a tad misleading, in part because the account above doesn't take into account cost, but it may be the cast that Tony Woolgar's comments make this relevant. Anyway, I have no problems if people wanted to put it back, but I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. - Bilby (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Any sort of comparative quality testing is always relevant and notable, and if you can find other test results that are more recent and from equally unbiased sources, please bring them here to the Talk page for discussion. I only added that to the article without discussion because the source had already been used for a long time, and was not in dispute. I think quality testing is important enough to go into the article lede, and so I've added it. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify this. I think the inclusion of further information about the quality test study should be welcomed. The original statement was unclear. It said that the Australian manufacturers were superior when the opposite is true. I thought that section warranted more detail from the start, as it left the facts of the story open to interpretation and/or confusion. Now if we want to argue over its intrinsic value, that's another discussion. I can see the case for both sides. On the one hand it provides some empirical, third-party data to the competition between Deckers and Australian manufacturers. Since it is coming from a news outlet and includes quotations from a prominent individual within the industry, I don't think it has any POV issues. On the other, I can see how one would want to avoid cluttering up the page any more than is already the case. I've restored here because I like the idea of keeping the debate open. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess from my perspective, the results were a bit meaningless. Rather than saying "Australian manufacturers make worse boots than China", you could equally read them to say "more expensive ugg boots are better quality", " synthetic ugh boots are stronger than natural fibre ones". It wasn't comparing like-with-like, and the results could be read to mean multiple things, but because Today Tonight aren't exactly a reliable source, they took it in a particular direction to match their story. Entering into reviews seems like opening a can of worms, as picking one review seems biased, but dropping in lots seems to be moving too far away from a general discussion. - Bilby (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The only relevance of the paragraph is that synthetic is better than natural. The original sentence says that and doesn't need the added fluff."Independent testing by Channel 7 in Perth, Western Australia ranked the Australian synthetic ugg boots made in China higher in quality than Deckers, which are also made in China, and the Australian made sheepskin boots.[22]"It does not say that "the Australian manufacturers were superior when the opposite is true" as the anon claims, it simply says that the synthetic is superior to Deckers and Australian made. I vote for the original if it is included. Wayne (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Second Wayne. Donama (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems peculiar to me that everyone approved both the statement and the source for a very long time, when the statement in the article was inaccurate. But since I've corrected the factual inaccuracy, the statement is described as "meaningless" and the source described as "[isn't] exactly a reliable source." Why was it all right before, but not now? 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify again. The original entry said in effect, "Australian company makes the highest quality ugg boots." But the winner was a synthetic, and a reliably sourced statement elsewhere in the article described synthetics as "fake." My correction states accurately, in effect, "Deckers makes the highest quality sheepskin boots." I feel this is an improvement of the article and it should be in the lede. Quality is a very important issue. Testing results by a third party are very notable. I'm not cherry picking this test result. If there are other test results from reliable third parties, let's include those as well. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the only relevance of the paragraph in this article is that synthetic is better than natural and it is of no relevance that you think synthetic is "fake" as they are still ugg boots. If you want to push Deckers then go and add it to the UGG Australia article. Wayne (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't just the anon editor who thinks they're fake. According to reliable sources cited in this Wikipedia article, there are many in the industry (including Australian manufacturers) who contend that synthetics are "fake uggs." It's indeed strange that when the article said "Australian boots are highest quality," the Australian editors supported it; but now that it says, "Deckers are the highest quality made of sheepskin," at least three Australian editors have lined up against it. Other suggestions of an anti-Deckers bias have been seen previously. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When has the article ever said that "Australian boots are highest quality"? Why is "fake" relevant if they are not claiming to be real sheepskin? Wayne (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mimicking the ugg boot style enables the "fake ugg" manufacturer to cash in on the fashion craze that Deckers created with their marketing. But the "fake ugg" producer spends far less money in manufacturing. It's the style that attracts many consumers. If they look like ugg boots, some people will buy them, especially since they are cheaper. I heard that the fake uggs retain odor, which may not have shown up in the Channel 7 quality tests. Imagine smelling like dirty socks every time you wear these boots. Channel 7 tested for durability by tearing the boots apart and measuring the amount of energy required to tear them apart. The original wording of the article said that the Australian company's synthetic ugg boots won the quality testing and that, I'd suggest, is reasonably understood as "Australian boots are highest quality." 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I disagree with having the original text, but it wasn't given a lot of weight, so wasn't a major concern. We now give more weight to one review than any other, (noting that we include no other reviews), which is clearly undue, and in that coverage have been giving attention to on a single reading of the results. Today Tonight is not exactly known for unbiased product reviews, so I wouldn't consider them reliable on this score on any article, and I certainly wouldn't feature them as the only review in an article. Let the Decker's UGG Australia article talk about the quality of UGG Australia boots, if it can be balanced. This one should just talk about the history. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Until now, with an inaccurate paraphrase of the test results, you didn't have a problem with it. Now that the article here at Wikipedia states the quality test results with greater precision, suddenly you have all these objections. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read my comment above, I point out that I had concerns previously, but it was a small section, so it wasn't a big deal. Now it has been expanded, giving one single review considerable weight, and those concerns have become somewhat bigger. Your new section, bringing even more focus onto a single review, doesn't help this. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Phoenix and Winslow keeps complaining about an "inaccurate paraphrase". Synthetic is better quality than both Deckers and Australian sheepskin, what exactly is inaccurate about this claim? If P&W is going to keep insisting that the Today Tonight article promote Deckers then I have no problem excluding it to avoid unneccessary edit waring. If it gets any worse we will end up with a style and price list for Deckers products. The article is about the boots, it is not about the merits of any particular brand. Wayne (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No Wayne, the new paragraph quotes the Australian Sheepskin Association, which clearly supports the Australian manufacturers in their dispute with Deckers elsewhere on the same web page. The new paragraph doesn't mention the durability testing by Channel 7. It's longer than that paragraph and it's placed before that paragraph, therefore giving the ASA greater weight. We've had this discussion before regarding a different article and we had to go over WP:WEIGHT one line at a time. Higher placement in the article and greater length both provide greater weight to the Australians. Also, it isn't just about one brand. It's about all six of the brand studied in the Channel 7 testing.
 * I've just added another foreign case in which the "generic term" defense was shot down in flames, and I've also made corrections in other sections of the article to more accurately reflect what the sources actually say. Let's see whether those sections get deleted too. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no reason to have anything remotely associated with "Today Tonight" listed as a source for something that is supposed to be encyclopaedic. The results of this study, if included here, would be out of the context of early-mid 2000s Australian current affairs where things like "We looked at ten different brands of popular washing detergent... Which cleaned the best??? The results might not be what most of you would think......." cropped up at least once a week. This repeated motif was even parodied on the ABC TV programme "Frontline". It's like using "Ghost Hunters" as a source for an article on the afterlife. Any thought of its inclusion here is nothing but cherry picking as users search for anything they can find to support their preferred reality for the article. Just ask yourself how you would react if certain editors found an article in The National Enquirer that supported the generic position. While Today Tonight isn't quite on the same silliness level as that publication, it is still among Australia's lowest forms of journalism. Mandurahmike (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! That 7perth.com.au page is the opposite of a reliable source—it's just entertainment fluff and it would only be accidental if their results were accurate and useful in an encyclopedic article. Perhaps the enthusiasts would like to create Which UGG BOOT is best? and put all the market comparison and consumer awareness stuff there. That suggestion is a weak joke to point out that such material is not suitable for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible bias among editors
I am new to editing this article, and I hope to bring a fresh perspective. Everyone please examine your own motives in editing this article. Do you work for a manufacturer, or are you linked to them in some way? Are your editing decisions motivated by a misplaced sense of national pride, whether you are from America or Australia? Wikipedia is not just for Americans or Australians. For nearly every reader in all the other countries of the world, the term "Ugg boots" refers to a brand name. I have lived in some of those those other countries for many years and this is a fact. Whether it is due to Deckers using aggressive marketing and aggressive lawyers is irrelevant. It is a fact. I am an immigrant to America, born and raised in China, and then lived for five years in Europe while studying. I can tell you from my experience that it is a fact. But my experience doesn't matter to Wikipedia. What matters is the reliable sources. These confirm that for the rest of the world, "Ugg boots" is a brand name. Please stop fighting over this. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly, we've had this argument before, and it has been discounted. If you wish to read or write about the UGG Australia brand, there is a perfectly good article on the topic at UGG Australia. If you wish to read or write about the Australian style of footware, there is this article. That has always seemed like the best method of distinguishing between the two uses of the term - have two articles. Other than this, I see no value in revisiting the argument: it has been done to death. - Bilby (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After an extensive review of the editing history, it appears to me that the Australian editors seem very comfortable with an extensive discussion of the UGG Australia brand, as long as it's losing a court battle in the Australian IP courts, and losing a quality comparison with an Australian brand in a Channel 7 news story. But when the discussion turns to the UGG Australia brand being the best genuine sheepskin boot in the very same Channel 7 news story, and winning every other court battle around the world, there are calls from the Australian editors to remove that material. It's like publishing a book about Napoleon's empire, describing it as a complete history, but you stop writing after the Battle of Borodino, the last battle that Napoleon won. All the battles afterward that Napoleon lost were left out of the book. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Shockingly, I note that the other court cases are all in the article. I can see the clear bias there. My issues with the review are well outlined above, and have nothing to do with Decker's being promoted - I would be just as opposed to including any single review claiming that any manufacturer made the best boots. This is an issue of being unbalanced and providing undue weight to a single, unreliable, source. It is not related to who was being promoted by that source. Perhaps it can be better described as imagining an article about beer, that references only a single review, and on that basis describes one beer as the best. I like beer analogies much better than Napoleon. - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you start objecting to Channel 7 as an unreliable source, or to the presence of a single quality review without others, until a few days ago, Bilby? Please don't feel that I'm singling you out. If Phoenix and Winslow appears, I'll have a few questions for him as well. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained above, a few days ago the coverage of the "study" consisted on one sentence that didn't draw a direct comparison between manufacturers of sheepskin ugg boots, but instead drew a comparison between synthetic and sheepskin boots. That was then expands to turn it into a comparison between manufacturers, placing considerable weight on the the study. I wasn't happy with the old text, but it was minimal. This became an issue now when the coverage of that study extended to something like four or five times the original coverage,appeared in both the lead and the trademark sections, and started trying to draw direct comparisons between manufacturers of sheepskin boots. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also there have been attempts by Australian editors to remove those other court cases. Surely you remember these attempts. I've seen them in the archives of this Talk page. The current presence of other court cases in the article does not alter this history of objections. Why do you prefer for the article to discuss "Australians won" at such great length, but find excuses to remove the "Australians lost" material about the same subject? We are writing about this subject, and readers should be able to find all the relevant material, both the wins and the losses, in one article. If you like your beer analogy, then find another quality study and if it is reliable and neutral, we should include it. But making one study and then publishing it is what the secondary sources always do. Wikipedia follows wherever the secondary sources lead. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In general, the objection to the other court cases have been based on whether or not they were directly related to the generic term. The concern was mostly with the Dutch case, which was primarily about counterfeiting, and in which the generic term defence played only a very small role and wasn't originally included - however, as coverage now focuses on the relevant part of that, there isn't a problem. In regard to more reviews, I'd rather not turn this article into a shopping guide. Putting in twenty or thirty reviews to balance things out would be a terrible direction for an article about a style of footwear, as opposed to individual products, to go. Putting in just one is undue weight. Adding now handles the NPOV problem much better. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have read the history then you will know that the regular Australian editors have not been removing the other court cases. What do you mean by "great length"? The so called "Australians won" material is 120 words compared to 410 words for "Australians lost" not to mention an additional 288 words in the trademark section. You should be more concerned about the constant POV pushing for Deckers. The "Concerns about Quality" section is irrelevant as this article is not about comparing brands or promoting Deckers. Who has concerns anyway? Certainly not consumers as they have never been fashionable in Australia. Wayne (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In this section of the Talk page it's clear that Bilby was suggesting removal of the Dutch case, and had already removed a blockquote from that section. Bilby said, "The argument you've provided for keeping that case in the article ..." So the counter argument Bilby was apparently making was that the case should be out of the article. The edit history in the article itself shows this was the case. Wayne, you have only recently joined this discussion like me. When entering as the new person in a long discussion, it's good to review. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are counting words, remember that Wikipedia is produced from the sources. If a majority of sources describe cases that the Australians lost, then a majority of the space in this article devoted to court cases should discuss those cases that the Australians lost. If Napoleon won all the battles for two years and then lost all the battles for the next four years, then only the first one-third of the book should cover Napoleon's victories, no more, no less. We follow where the sources lead us, and we must do it without bias. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bias is nothing new on this page. A while back I posted information about a fact sheet which had been by issued by IP Australia regarding the entirety of the trademark dispute in Australia. (I am unable to track down the online version, but I did download a PDF when I had the chance, I can send if you like) It stated that IP Australia determined that in 1971, “Based on the information available at the time, the UGH marks were found to be suitable for registration and in the absence of any successful opposition actions were subsequently registered.” It also stated, “If a trade mark has become generic, a case may be made before a court for removal of that mark from the register of trade marks. Only the court system can give a definitive answer about whether a term is generic. The question of whether the term UGG of UGH is generic has not been considered by the courts.” These statements, along with the entire source were not allowed based on claims that they were too close to the action to be considered secondary sources. I found that to be ludicrous since here we had a government agency saying explicitly what it’s own rights were with respect to the case without making argument for either side.--Factchk (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that you seem to be coming down on the side of "recognising that this is a brandname in most of the world" -- part of the reason I stopped bothering with this article, and Wikipedia in general, is due to the fact that I am finding it very difficult to assume good faith in just about any article these days.

You're right - there are two points of view in this article. The one which I, and most Australians find ourselves on seeks to have articles about the generic object we call "ugg boots" AND simultaneously an article about Ugg Australia/Deckers. The other side of the debate seems primarily concerned about either pushing the generic term off the face of the planet by constantly tapping the reader on the shoulder in this article, about the generic style of footwear, and letting them know "hey, in case you didn't know this is a BRAND in most of the world". For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why on Earth there needs to be TWO articles about "Deckers Ugg Boots". I always felt it was enough to acknowledge their existence here, discuss some of the trademark issues as they are relevant to any discussion of the generic boot, but that most of the other elements which keep being jammed into this article belong on the Deckers' page.

The court cases -- ah yes. I was involved in some of the discussions about those. My chief concern was the mobilisation of "The Dutch Case" which had nothing to do with the issue at hand and seemed to be included more for the purposes of moral one upmanship than anything else.

So in closing - youve got one group of editors who want two different article for two different things and another group who want two articles for the same thing.

The purpose of this article and all of Wikipedia should be to tell people what something is -- NOT to argue a position. Ugg Boots as a generic concept and style exist and have a long history. This is an undeniable fact. That fact should be free to be explained without the distraction of constant POV disclaimers from the other definition which, after all, has it's very own article anyway.Mandurahmike (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike, there's a very good reason for inclusion of all these other court cases. This article is about "ugg boots," the boot style? Oh really, then why include the IP Australia case that removed "UGH-BOOTS" from the trademark registry? I think all, or nearly all, of the Australian editors want it included. And if that's included, why not include all the other cases (including the Dutch case) where the "generic term defense" is employed? No, I don't want two different articles for the same thing. In my opinion, there should be one article. The term "Ugg boots" means a boot style in Australia and New Zealand, and a brand name in every other country in the world. I think several of the Australian editors are arguing a position, and they want everything that doesn't support that position removed to some other article. I saw much the same behavior by an army of biased editors at the Barack Obama article. Any criticism of Obama, and even subject matter that might reasonably engender criticism, was removed to another article. Here, any material that suggests "Ugg boots" is not a generic term attracts an attempt to remove it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like these will every be a consensus here. I think that all of the Australian editors combined should be counted as just one vote. They clearly will only agree to anything that supports their argument and they are really just a very small country. From the comments they are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!--Cowboysforever (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure... And who are you? Posting in a manner that no newby would?TMCk (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your xenophobia is noted. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi... I am kinda new on the scene. It makes sense to me that any information about Ugg boots, even a different spelling, should be in the Ugg boot category. I mean, is Ugh actually talking about something different??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristieSwitz88001 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Serious Problem with the Lede
Bibly – I understand your previous point about having two separate articles, but the general description of content in each needs to be clarified. As you stated: “if you wish to read or write about the Australian style of footwear, there is this article.” Up until recently the lede of this article reflected this and read “This article is about a style of footwear in Australia and New Zealand. For the brand known as UGG see UGG Australia.” However, it has now been revised to “This article is about the type of footwear. For the brand known as "UGG", see UGG Australia” This lede is certain to confuses readers by suggesting that the term is non-exclusive or even generic throughout the world, which of course is not true (as supported by countless sources). As the Turkish decision reflects, while the term may be non-exclusive in Australia and New Zealand, it is well recognized as a brand in virtually every other country in the world. If this article is to be about a style of boots in Australia and New Zealand as you suggest, the lead needs to clearly state that.--Factchk (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If we are discussing the lede, I would like to know why the durability study from Channel 7 is not mentioned. Most people who read Wikipedia are not trademark attorneys or marketing agents. They are consumers. So a discussion of the relative quality and durability of the different brands and countries of origin would be very important to them. Please don't say "irrelevant' or "meaningless" without explaining why you believe it is irrelevant or meaningless. If you are buying a pair of boots for a member of your family, what is the most important thing to you? The victory of the Australian manufacturers in Australian IP court? History of the boot style and importance in Australian culture? Or the quality and durability of the boots? 63.171.91.193 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a deep misunderstanding about what WP is and is not. We are not a consumer guide for shopping!TMCk (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But we provide all information that is relevant and notable about the subject, and we follow where the reliable secondary sources take us. If a reliable secondary source produces a durability study, we should report its results. It is relevant to the story of the boot style, and it is notable. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We do provide (most) information that is relevant, notable and due weight about the subject of the article in question where there are reliable secondary sources available and we often have to decide by consensus how much is due weight. If there is a study from a secondary source we might be able to include it if it is important and mainstreem and there is consensus to do so but we don't have to include it just b/c it's out there, even if it might be an wp:RS (which I don't know it is). The point: Notability is not established by one editor's opinion but by the (quantity and quality) media coverage out there and when challenged, by consensus.TMCk (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fatchak, this article is about a style of boots which originated in Australia and New Zealand, that is identified only as "ugg boots" - a term that originated in the countries of origin. The lead should be clear that this is about the style of footwear. This style of footwear is also available outside of Australia and New Zealand, so changing the lead to read This article is about the type of footwear in Australia and New Zealand would be misleading, because that type of footwear is not exclusive to those two countries.
 * The reason for removing the Channel 7 "study" from the lead is because that would give it massive undue weight. It is, as I've said above, one and only one study, by a questionable source, and thus including it in the lead would give it an undue emphasis. - Bilby (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You avoided this question before, so I'll ask again: why have you waited until just these past few days before objecting to Channel 7 News as a "questionable source"? 63.171.91.193 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't avoided the question. I've responded here, and previously explained here and here. My concern is one of weight. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You used the term "questionable source," But when asked to explain why you've waited so long to object, you don't address WP:RS. You address weight. Consider the reliability issue waived. Your issue is weight, which is largely a matter of opinion. I think it would be really hard to accurately describe the actual results of the study without at least 40-50 words. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliability holds. My promary concern is with due weight, but in particular due weight of a Today Tonight story. If this test was the result of a neutral and respected consumer publication, it would be less of an issue with due weight, but still a serious problem. But it isn't even that. - Bilby (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not really important if he/she really "waited" to object and is just your opinion that they did so. As it turnes out, they made their point(s) before so maybe it's time to stop commenting on the editors and focus on the subject. We sure don't need any good or bad faith distruction here.TMCk (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just accused of sockpuppetry in an edit summary, so stop whining. The timing of these objections about the study, coming on the heels of deletion of well-sourced material about the settlement of the Emu Australia lawsuit, strongly suggests that there is a genuine bias problem here among some of the Australian editors — even if we ignore all the previous history. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you just admitted to be IP 63.171.91.193 as the accusation was not against you and your user name but in response to the IP's edit. Not that I'm surprisedf about the connection. Socks always make mistakes sooner or later and you just did.TMCk (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding, since the edit summary contained a hotlink behind the phrase "sock drawer" that led to a sockpuppetry investigation page against me, was that I was accused of running 63.171.91.193 as a sock. That was a reasonable understanding. It's a false accusation, and if any of you chooses to report it to WP:SSP a Checkuser will confirm that it's a false accusation. The timing of Bilby's decision to raise concerns about source reliability, the repeated deletion of well-sourced material about the dismissal of the Emu Australia case, Wayne following me to this page in violation of WP:STALK, and the previous diligent efforts to keep out anything that made Deckers look good while including anything that made Deckers look bad, all point to an anti-Deckers bias on the part of some of the editors here.
 * If you want to challenge Channel 7's reliability as a source, Wayne has already experienced how things tend to go at the reliable sources noticeboard. He lost. I won. So let's go.
 * Anybody who puts the word "magnificent" in his username has an ego that's too enormous and fragile for real collegial, cooperative editing on a project like this one. It's very late at night here and you're really starting to get annoying. So I'm going to call it a night before I say something I'll regret. Go and harass somebody else. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to provide evidence of stalking? We only have two articles in common and I was editing this one before you first began editing the other which I had already been editing for some time. Just another example of your tendentious claims, I cant hear you behaviour, outright lying and misdirection to support your own POV claims. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were editing this article before, you stopped. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not productive, I do see signs of an anti-Deckers bias on these pages from a few editors. But I also see signs of a possible pro-Deckers bias on your part. What is your reaction to this observation? Many of your edits are good and well researched. I would like to know how you found this Turkish case if you are not directly connected to Deckers in some way. But your good edits do not excuse others that appear to be possible pro-Deckers advertising. Please be careful about this. See your edits through the eyes of the Australians. I also sense a degree of personal animosity here. Let's all focus on improving the article. Those who come to Wikipedia with other agendas often find themselves blocked. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed a mention of the Turkish case in a legal magazine. The law firm was mentioned so I looked at their website. When I arrived at this article, just like the previous article I edited with Wayne, I could see that there was a lot wrong with it. An enormous amount. And the editors already present on the article had made it that way, and liked it that way. So when I tried to resolve these problems, they resisted. They made accusations. They reverted me. If NPOV means that an article should find neutral ground between A and B, and the article happens to be standing on A because existing editors have a bias against B, then attempting to push the article toward that neutral ground might be perceived as a bias in favor of B.
 * Nobody's perfect. When I attempt to push toward neutral ground, I might write something that could objectively be seen as biased. It isn't intentional and I apologize for that, but I'm doing my best to create an NPOV article here. When I arrived it was very heavily biased against Deckers, and in favor of the Australian manufacturers. There's been a lot of improvement. More needs to be done. You've been very helpful in checking the source, and determining that the results of the Channel 7 quality tests were not being represented accurately here. So you can see how it is, and how they are. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An editor without even a basic knowledge of law just happened to read a legal magazine containing a ref to the court case that is not mentioned online? I applaude the improvement to your research skills over the last months. Wayne (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some knowledge of the law, as you learned during your miserable failure to turn Wikipedia into a WP:FRINGE data source at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. That article was stubbed by WP administrators because it was packed with your fringe theory information, from a source found to be unreliable (due to my efforts) at WP:RSN. This may help explain to others your obvious animosity toward me. I happen to know that the WIPO site has an entire page that they have devoted to "well known marks." So I combine the word UGGS with that phrase in a Google search every now and then. Surprise, surprise: the Turkish case is listed first in that Google search. Now you're devoted to wrecking this article like the Franklin article, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You initially lost the WP:RSN but later won ONLY after canvassing for support, for which you were reprimanded, which gave you a majority. The source is still used in other WP articles and was only found to be unreliable for that particular article. The WP:FTN was closed unresolved. Seeing as you are continually making personal attacks based on lies to support your case here I cannot leave the accusations unchallenged. That article was only stubbed because you successfully argued that photocopies of primary and secondary sources could not be verified against the originals for accuracy so could not be used. While the primary sources are sealed by court order the secondary sources reporting on the primary sources are available but at a cost of over $1000 unless they are accessed at the source in the US. Although you had access to the secondary sources and did read some of them you refused to allow Wikipedia access or confirm that the copies were accurate, I assume as it would have prevented the stubbing. That was the only reason the article was stubbed. Why you put so much effort (and repeated so many lies) into having a long standing well written article deleted eludes me. I find it hard to believe that it was because the article was irrelevant, politically motivated smear as you claimed. Wayne (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW. It's interesting that you originally said you found the case in a legal magazine then later said you found it in a google search. I found it impossible to find the Turkish case at all on Google without using details from the case yet using the unlikely term "Uggs well known marks" that you suggested brings up over five million results with the obscure WalkerMorris lawfirm website ranked number one. Can firms still pay Google to have ranking because it cant be based on traffic. Wayne (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wayne, just like the mainspace in Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, you're in the habit of twisting the truth and distorting key details. For one thing, I didn't say that I found the article using Google. I merely pointed out that it is easily found using Google. As for the rest, the record at WP:RSN speaks for itself. That unreliable source might still be used at other WP articles because I haven't taken the time to track your fringe theories down yet. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Whining"? What the hell are you taking about. I'm sure it's not your promo-bias shown all over international wikis but your obvious bias right here that makes you see things that are not there to put it mildly. Get to the point if you have the earch to comment on the editor rather than responding to editors on the subject. And taking about sockpuppetry: You never were cleared; The result of check user was "possible" so try not to stear the pot that's cooking you.TMCk (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC) BTW, I'm not obsessed with this article as you are. Might be worth a story...TMCk (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think this is an issue for here. While we've had sockpuppetry concerns in the past, I'm happy to AGF and assume that P&W wasn't involved. Either way, though, it is an issue for other forums, and/or WP:SPI. - Bilby (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugg boots no longer is an Australian name and hasn't been for quite a few years (says the many, many legal rulings in favor of Decker's) and so this article lede should be changed to separate Australia and New Zealand from Decker's as it is a brand everywhere outside of these countries. i.e. “This article is about a style of footwear in Australia and New Zealand. For the brand known as UGG see UGG Australia.”. As it ranks #3 on Google, its the Aussies only way to be heard, which is obviously the real motivation about this but, facts are facts, sorry Australian Sheepskin Association and all your associtated editors but that attorney was right, you are fighting a losing battle when you tried to stop Decker's in Australia and outside of Australia (that was their original goal in 2004 when the quote was made).--Cowboysforever (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, that when talking about Ugg boots, it should be discussed in the CURRENT worldwide context. Otherwise, it's HISTORY.  Sure, go ahead and discuss the Australian history of the company, but if the Ugg name was sold to an American manufacturer, then that is what is current.  Include ALL current information, short and sweet.  Include all of the historical things under History of Ugg boots.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristieSwitz88001 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That ugg boots are a style of boot is not just history. It's current reality. Ugg is a style, not merely a brand. Do you really wish to perpetuate this commercial bias toward one particular company's version of reality? It's not all that far away from turning the article into a advertisement. Donama (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugg boots TODAY (in Australia)
I think another example of the heavy Deckers slant of this article is the fact that it doesn't really say much about Ugg boots other than some vague historical detail and then goes right into the bit about Deckers and their popularity.

If we're going to talk about the popularity of Ugg Boots (TM), should we not also include in this section something about the popularity of generic ugg boots as a cultural icon in Australia and also the pretty important piece of information that they are not viewed as fashionable in their country of origin -- in fact, the opposite (they are practical and comfortable, but about as trendy as "Crocs" are in the US) -- Given their popularity as a fashion trend thanks to Deckers, this opposite situation in countries of origin, Australia and NZ seems like a pretty major detail to omit when you want people to understand about Ugg Boots. At the moment people reading this article would come away under the mistaken impression that they were always viewed as stylish everywhere. Addition of info such as this, as well as removing the without-consensus watering down of the generic nature of the boot in the lead (that was locked in when the page got locked) and the removal of the irrelevant "counterfeit" cases would go some way toward removing the heavy "history according to Deckers slant we see at the moment." and turning it into a true article about the ugg bootMandurahmike (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This information was originally in the article but was removed by the editors that added the Deckers court cases. It is especially significant now as the new sitcom Housos is being currently promoted in television advertisements as containing "UGGs, the footwear of choice for bogans." Wayne (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the information is relevant and should be re-included, do you have any sources to back up the info per chance?Millertime246 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The advertisment, which mentions that the show "has UGGs" and then pans to a closeup of someone hooning in a car while wearing them may be online. The "UGGs, the footwear of choice for bogans" quote comes from a half page article in the newspaper a few weeks ago discussing the controversy over the sitcom. Wayne (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a couple of reviews similar to this one."Sunnyvale is the shittiest suburb in the shittiest part of town and the broad stereotypes that live there are the shittiest people who populate the shittiest houses. The theme song sings about how they love thongs and ugg boots, and they talk about wishing they could get disability cheques from Centrelink, and we see them give their kids nailguns or watch them fight in the street. The residents of Sunnyvale are bogans and westies" Wayne (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a suggestion for the article here? Obviously any content should be based on reliable secondary sources, and I doubt if info on ads is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought something like this - http://www.theage.com.au/news/danny-katz/the-uggly-side-of-life/2006/09/27/1159337216912.html

"THE Canadian Inuit call them mukluks, the Native American Indians call them moccasins, and here in Australia we just call them uggies — but no matter what you call them, no matter what part of the world you come from, the fur or wool-lined soft-leather winter boot will always be associated with daggy fashion sense, bogan behaviour, and the outer suburbs."Mandurahmike (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything suitable for an encyclopedic article there. While the page might not meet the technical definition of a blog (I don't know), it is obviously someone's opinion expressed with overdosed humor. This article should not be used to record who loves ugg boots. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While it's obviously an opinion piece, it is in one of the biggest selling newspapers in the country - not "someone's blog". I'm not sure how we'd build a case for the cultural status of an item as (or not as) a piece of fashion without drawing on references from the media and popular culture. I'm not looking for huge change's just something in to point out that the point expressed where we say "Generally worn for warmth and comfort, ugg boots had never been considered fashionable" continues to be the case in Australia and New Zealand. What we have now is a large chunk about celebrities loving them and talk shows which makes it sound like we're saying "Generally worn for warmth and comfort, ugg boots had never been considered fashionable -- Ugg Australia changed all that" - which is clearly not the case. I think this could be also solved by toning down some of the Deckers hype in the early paragraphs.Mandurahmike (talk) 12:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A considerable proportion of the article mentions already "who loves Uggs". As the sky is blue so it is known that Uggs are not fashionable in Australia, not now or ever and are primarily worn by bogans. No one else would be caught dead wearing them in public but most women have a pair for wearing in front of the TV on cold nights. It's Australian culture and deserves a prominent mention. Wayne (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How did ugg boots become an Aussie "cultural icon"? Doesn't that mean they're considered fashionable? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * They became an icon specifically because they were popular despite being unfashionable and associated with bogans, who are the only people who would willingly wear them in public. This remains the case today. The only reason they are fashionable overseas is ignorance of their status in Australia where they are seen primarily as a slipper. Would Deckers have sold many if Oprah had told her audience not to wear them in public because only trailer trash did? Wayne (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Think of them like a "Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich" in the USA - an American icon through and through, but not something you'd order at a fashionable restaurant. Not all cultural icons are fashionable.Mandurahmike (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

They are today more popular in Australia due to Decker's worldwide promotions. In fact, isn't this further proof that Deckers made the ugg boot what it is today? Example: http://www.igotuggs.com/ Things have changed, they always do and Decker's UGG TM is responsible for much of this, even in Australia. Example: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/dont-feel-sheepish-about-your-uggies/story-fn6bqphm-1226013106074 I doubt that people like Oprah, hundreds of A list celebrities and Australian Nicole Kidman etc would be spotted out and about wearing them if they were only for "Trailer trash" nor would they be the worlds biggest selling boots, outside of Australia. Also need to consider Dress Code: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_code and the huge diversity when it comes to fashion. There are stores opening up in every major city in Australia, in major retail locations, by the various Australian manufacturers all trying to get on the Decker's UGG bandwagon. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KckjUMzAkxo http://www.uggson.com.au/uggs-on-george.html Obviously the perception of Ugg boots in Australia today is changing if not already changed. A brief mention of how this boot "was" in years gone by in Australia would be appropriate and is already in this article (see history). A comedy show in Australia about "Bogans" is amusing but has very little to do with how they are perceived in Australia today or in the other 99% of the world as UGGs are no longer an Australian boot!--Cowboysforever (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)