Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 29

Michael Moore
Is it really needed to have this sentence "He acquired a life membership to the National Rifle Association following the Columbine massacre, planning to be elected its president in order to dismantle the organization" in his personal life section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testthebest (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be well sourced, but it probably ought to be in another section. It may not have sufficient WP:WEIGHT, since it's only sourced to that one interview and he never did it.   Be— —Critical  00:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that statement is an NPOV issue. At any rate, the first place it should be discussed is at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that statement is an NPOV issue. At any rate, the first place it should be discussed is at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sam Brownback
An editor on this page has kept removing the section regarding the controversy involving the Governor and his staff over a student's tweet on twitter which was shown here:

Student Tweet Response Media Attention In November 2011, a High School student, while at a school-sponsored 'Kansas Youth in Government' event, being taught by the Governor, tweeted "Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he s***ed, in person #heblowsalot" on her Twitter page. As a result, Brownback's media office who monitors social networking outlets contacted the event sponsor. Later the school's principal asked the student to write a letter of apology to Brownback. The issue quickly gained national media attention after the student's sibling contacted local media outlets. Four days later, after the Thanksgiving long-weekend, the Governor released the following statement: "My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize. Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms."

The editor "Truthsort" mentions this as being trivial while ignoring the fact this has generated significant media coverage and even earning a response from the Governor in which he made an apology.

Additional sources can be found here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-1201-daum-brownbacktweet-20111201,0,5767062.column http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69196.html http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57332320-503544/brownback-apologizes-after-twitter-dust-up/ http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1128/Free-speech-covers-tweets-Gov.-Sam-Brownback-apologizes-to-Kansas-teen

The same user also changed the sub-heading on the page regarding "Darfur" to "Champion of Darfur Refugees" which is beginning to look like this same one is providing a more favourable image125.236.54.18 (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not strive for neutrality
I just wrote:

I'd like comments ( Be— —Critical 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Secondly
I already presented this issue here. We've been through a further long discussion on the talk page, here, during which I improved the sourcing greatly, and made sure that both conservative sources such as the Wall Street Journal, and at least one conservative writer, said the same things about how OWS has been criticized. They do say the same things. Now, NPOV says that


 * A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.

However, in a simplified example, if sources A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H say that that conservatives say Occupy Wall Street protesters are full of dippydoo-doo and should be shot in the whachum, what are we supposed to do? Aren't we supposed to just report that "conservatives say Occupy Wall Street protesters are full of dippydoo-doo and should be shot in the whachum?" Be— —Critical 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Newspapers/journals etc. in Kolkyland uniformly believe/stated the belief that Occupy is full of doopy doo? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose, but then I'd merely be asked to prove the negative: "How do you know it's universal." I have sufficient sources to put it in Wikipeida's voice, and anyway that's not the problem.  Currently, I've been asked to source every functional word of two sentences totaling 72 words so editors won't have to bother reading the quotes I included in the sources at the end of the two sentences.  Be— —Critical  14:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Becritical, you "just wrote"? What are you trying to say with that? That you have just put that into the policy? That you wrote it in the course of some discussion? Or is this a strange way of saying, "Here is a bit of text. Discuss"?

In any case I disagree with this. It's not completely false, but the way you have put it it sounds like fundamentalism. You know, like "Only verifiability matters, we don't care about truth". We just had a huge RfC on that, which has been closed, but we are still waiting for a closing statement. I think this is not a good time to come up with something so similar.

The truth is this: We are not transcription monkeys. (I stole this sentence from Jimbo.) Ideally, we would be neutral even when our sources are not. Whether we can achieve this in practics is of course a different matter. Often we can all agree what that means, at least sufficiently. Sometimes we can't, and then we need to look at how the sources cover something. This doesn't really solve the problem because we must decide how to weight these sources and may well decide to give some of the most popular ones a weight of zero. But it shifts the focus and therefore opens a new chance for consensus to develop. But sometimes, for various reasons, it can happen that neutrality actually means saying the opposite of what the sources say, or at least shutting up. An example is when a topic is so fringe that it isn't even mentioned seriously in mainstream sources, but it is sufficiently interesting to occur in the popular press occasionally. (A recent example is modern French Legitimists, a fringe group among the fringe group of modern French royalists which sometimes gets "dog bites man" type treatment in the press that is not easily recognisable as such.)

All our rules are elastic, and they need to be. Every attempt to make them axiomatic and give them absolute validity will cause other important principles to be broken in certain corner cases, and sometimes even in crass ways. Hans Adler 23:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Art Pope
I am in a long-running dispute with two SPA's and a SP IP user over the biography of this North Carolina entrepreneur and political figure, which seems unlikely to be resolved without the insight of outside editors. Please not that I previously listed this a a RfC but the article has seen only one brief comment since its listing, and I hope to attract more interest here. (I carefully read WP:CANVASS and think this is OK).

Art Pope and his family foundation have close relationships with several conservative non-profits, some of which bear his name, were founded by him, or are supported primarily by his privately-held company or his foundation. Several newspaper articles say things like "groups tied to Pope spending $2.1 million so far to influence the legislative races" or "Pope-connected organizations conducted a bus tour across the state to build support for conservative candidates" or "Groups tied to the Raleigh businessman had put $2.1 million toward unseating Democratic incumbents". (Reverences are all listed on the talk page).

Is it appropriate for the WP article on Art Pope to mention the action of these groups? Also, I believe the article would generally benefit from the contributions of additional editors. Thanks A13ean (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan


Can someone with a better eye for this, have a look at Rhys Morgan, to me it does not seem to be written from a WP:NPOV. Mt king  (edits)  00:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can't articulate any POV problems, why are you tagging it and refusing to use the Talk page to explain yourself? This looks like WP:TE to me. Rhode Island Red (talk)
 * Looks like a good article and from the editors I see working on it, it's in good hands. Some detail could perhaps could out to make it pithier, and perhaps there are one or two places where generic praise needs to be replaced by specifics per User:Sean.hoyland. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
I have serious problems with this article: Can an article really consist primarily of quotes from proponents of fringe views, with little to no attempt to provide a robust description of the mainstream points they're going against? The article presents assertions on a variety of topics, taken primarily from propaganda pieces, but makes no attempt to present the mainstream view on the points actually raised in the quotes.

It seems like the article just states the conclusions of the mainstream view in order to let it be attacked; no attempt to explain the evidence for the mainstream view, or mainstream reaction in made (except, on one single point, a picture caption is used to try halfheartedly to show the mainstream disagrees.) 86.** IP (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the use of direct quotes in this article is too extensive. It should merely be a list, following the title of the article. One sentence per member of the list might be enough to try and sum up their position, if we are to make it more than a list. Any further detail belongs in the dedicated articles about these individuals. Donama (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the issue of whether it's appropriate as an article, I suppose it is as valid as any list, the primary purpose of which is to group together a collection for ease of research with some additional information that makes it go beyond a simple categorisation. Donama (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyaluronan
There is a subtitle that says "Why hyaluronan is unique"... I think that's not NPOV.. --My Sistemx (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that is not an NPOV issue. The article is about a chemical and the heading "What makes hyaluronan unique?" is simply inappropriate (not encyclopedic) wording. Each chemical is clearly unique, and this one seems to have some uncontentious properties that make it "more" unique. I don't think anyone other than a subject specialist should edit the article, and a first step would be add a new section on its talk page (although I suppose that deleting the heading and the POV tag could be done by anyone, and would help). I don't even think it's worth raising the matter at a WikiProject, but that's another possibility. However, there is no WP:NPOV breach as meant by this noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohhh... I see... Fair enough, but for some reason... that subtitle just looks weird.. lol --My Sistemx (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the subtitle could just as easily be "Properties of Hyaluronan" without hurting the article, which, I agree, seems to be quite specialized. But if there's no contention that the stuff is *not* unique.... I don't really know that the title is doing any harm. There do seem to be specific reasons for the claim. I can't really evaluate them, but if they are true then these properties are notable. Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just came to my senses: the reason there is such an unencylopedic heading in the article is that it was copied from a company pdf by some new editors. I have removed the copyvio. The issue is resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming
Disputed text: "According to certain neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists, NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts"


 * Source used by Snowded:
 * Tomasz Witkowski (2010) - [www.tomaszwitkowski.pl/attachments/File/NLP.pdf]
 * Lum (2001) - failed verification (makes passing comment that does not add weight to support statement).
 * Corballis (1999) in Sergio Della Sala, Mind Myths
 * Stollznow (2010) - opinion piece written in skeptics' magazine
 * P. Drenth
 * Norcross (2006, 2008) has been used by the editors several times but failed verification. The editors (Snowded) claimed that this research made inferences about NLP in terms of professional consensus of discredit. However, the article makes no inference about NLP because there was too much variation in the data to make an inference.

Attempts to give a neutral tone to this statement have been squashed, diffs:. The sources do not really support the statement. This statement tries to imply there is consensus opinion amongst "neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists". None of the authors quoted are neuroscientists. The closest would be Corballis who is a researcher in cognitive neuropsychology but this book is just a skeptic book written exaggerated to make a point. One author is a linguist who is a self-described skeptic and again writes from an exaggerated point of view in order to try to give some balance to the overly positive attitude of proponents. Witkowski is organizational psychologist who is also a self-described skeptic. So these authors have a biased view.
 * Proposed change: "Critics, including a number of neuroscientists(who?), psychologists(who?) and linguists(who?), dispute the accuracy and empirical bases of its title, concepts, and terminology"

The disputed statement was clearly attempting to sum up the views of skeptics. This is fine but it should not go beyond the evidence. There is no evidence to indicate the consensus views of "neuroscientists, psychologists and linguists" or of academics more generally so the wording needs to be adjusted. There are other significant academics views that have been ignored by the editors of the NLP article and should be included. There are counter examples:
 * There are numerous academics including a professor of radiology (Dr Suzanne Henwood) who has published recently about NLP in a much more positive light than the skeptics mentioned above: e.g. Henwood, S. M. (2009). Can neuro linguistic programming skills be used to enhance clinical practice? Paper presented at the UK Radiological Congress 2009, 8 June Manchester.; Henwood, S. (2008). NLP and Health Care: Are we using it to the maximum? Paper presented at the NZANLP Professional Development Seminar, 16 November, Auckland.; Henwood, S. (2008). The key to communication. Shadows: The New Zealand Journal of Medical Radiation Technology, 51 (1), 33-36.
 * The founder of NLP, Grinder, was a professor of linguistics and has published about NLP recently in an academic publications: Tom Malloy, Carmen Bostic St Clair, John Grinder (2005). "Steps to an ecology of emergence". Cybernetics & Human Knowing (Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic ISSN 0907-0877) 11 (3): 102–119.
 * There is a university sponsored research group at University of Surrey, UK which has turned out publications, for example: J Mathison P Tosey (2009) Neuro-linguistic programming: a critical appreciation for managers and developers - published by Palgrave Macmillan, a reputable academic press. Sample publications including some peer-reviewed journal articles:
 * Exploring Moments of Knowing; Neuro-Linguistic Programming and enquiry into inner landscapes’, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 16 No. 10-12 pp189 - 216 (special issue)
 * Tosey, P. and Mathison, J. (2010) `Exploring inner landscapes through psychophenomenology: the contribution of neuro-linguistic programming to innovations in researching first person experience’, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management Vol. 5(1) 63-82
 * Tosey, P. (2010) `Neuro-Linguistic Programming for Leaders and Managers’, in Gold, J., Thorpe, R. and Mumford, A. (eds) Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Development (5th edn), pp. 313-329
 * Tosey, P. and Mathison, J. (2009) `Neuro-Linguistic Programming: a critical appreciation for managers and developers’, Basingstoke, Hants: Palgrave Macmillan Carey, J., Churches, R., Hutchinson, G., Jones, J. and Tosey, P. (2009) `Neuro-linguistic programming and learning: teacher case studies on the impact of NLP in education’, Reading: CfBT Education Trust. (This research report was highlighted in the May issue of the School Research News, the DFE monthly update.)
 * Mathison, J. and Tosey, P. (2008) `Riding into Transformative Learning’, Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol 15. No. 2, pp 67-88
 * Tosey, P., Mathison, J., & Michelli, D. (2005) `Mapping Transformative Learning: the potential of neuro-linguistic programming’, Journal of Transformative Education, Vol. 3 No. 2 pp 140 - 167

So perhaps a line should be added to summarize the views of supportive literature and a line to summarize the typical views of practitioners.

--122.108.140.210 (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm bemused that you are claiming that a "researcher in cognitive neuropsychology" is not a neuroscientist when the best you are able to offer in return is a radiologist. --FormerIP (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever the status of Snowded and collaborators he is well known for his activities on the NLP article . Whatever, your reply is nieve though perhaps that is because you did not have access to all the information.  Look again at the University of Surrey research. The flaws in previous research were due to the sledgehammer approach of science on something as subtle as NLP and communication. The addition of skeptics on the NLP article makes for a situation where Wikipedia has been made to slander a perfectly legitimate and constructive development.  Surrey U uses phenomenology as a lense to view NLP and the results are valid.  Snowded, Lam Kin Keung and others are obviously trying to disparage NLP and make Wikipedia appear to conclude NLP is pseudoscientific.  I urge you to look again at the literature provided above. Congru (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time a non-scientific therapy has claimed science is too brutal an instrument to measure its success. Sorry but you can't claim science is a "sledgehammer approach" or that NLP is somehow special and not expect Wikipedia to reflect skepticism about its efficacy. As an outsider to the article this sets my alarm bells ringing. NPOV doesn't mean scientific and non-scientific claims get equal weight. Donama (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The current editors of the article are at loggerheads. Is there a way to assign weight in a systematic fashion? In a practical sense, in the article, how much space should be set aside for each prominent points of view? How can we decide what are the prominent views in an objective way? --122.108.140.210 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By "systematic fashion" I suspect you mean objectively, perhaps with some kind of formula or procedure. Unfortunately, formulas, etc., are not sophisticated enough for the purpose; in the end some editor has to evaluate the claims and weigh accordingly.  Nor is it a matter of how much space each view gets (an article is not a collection of different sized soapboxes), but of what point view best describes the  topic.  The best "systematic fashion" is collecting reliable sources and having a reasoned debate.  Perhaps you all need help with that process? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for some way to prioritize reliable sources based on number of citations or impact factor of the journal/book it was published in. Its difficult because the academic research into NLP is sporadic and spread across multiple fields. I do think we all need help with the process. You'd need to talk to Snowded and Lam K who have been researching into NLP for many years and have curated the article for up to 6 years. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia
There is a disputa at Conservapedia another editor wishes to put 'far-right' into the lead before anything else. I don't disagree with the characterization but I think there are lots of other things which are more important and the sources that they give do not I feel justify it. I tried moving it down to the 'Political and religious ideology' section but they insist on moving it back. A discussion is at Talk:Conservapedia. It had originally been stuck in with no citation which explains why my first complaint was about that. Could I have another opinion on whether it is right to stick that in at the start of the article please. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Zilch response, well that's just great. I guess I'll just have to try an RfC instead to break the impasse. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ulp sorry there are some responses at the article talk page and somehow I had knocked Conservapedia off my watchlist! Thanks very much. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The University of Al-Karaouine and the List of oldest universities in continuous operation


Hello,

On the articles University of Al-Karaouine and List of oldest universities in continuous operation, I found 4 academic sources, plus the UNESCO and the Guinness Book, stating that the University of Al-Karaouine is the oldest university in the world, but a "freelance historian", Kevin Shillington, contests that fact by stating that the University of Al-Karaouine became a university only in 1947.

This case was discussed before but I see, according to the archives of the Talk Page, that no consensus was found and that the removal of non-European/Christian universities is still contested , and that some comments were deleted by one of the participants (the two first highlighted comments were deleted for "personal attacks" while only the last one  was an attack).

After that, the user Yopie continued to revert any add of a non-European/American university, while the NPOV policy is stating that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" must be proportionately represented. Isn't that an infringement to the proportional representation of the NPOV policy?

proposed alternative paragraph: ''The Al Karaouine institution is considered by the Guinness book(reference), the UNESCO(reference), and many historians(references) as the oldest continuously operating academic degree-granting university in the world. However, this claim is contested by other historians who consider that medieval universities in the Islamic world and medieval European universities followed very different historical trajectories until the former were expanded to the later in modern times(reference), and the certificate delivered in non-European universities deviated in concept and procedure from the medieval doctorate out of which modern university degrees evolved(reference).''

I hope that we can find a solution to this problem.

Regards.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Omar-Toons doesn't seem to understand what qualifies as a reliable source considering they think that includes juvenile literature. The issue was pointed out at WP:AN, yet they still see fit to call it an "academic" source here. I would like to see Omar-Toons offering a detailed justification for why these sources ought to be considered reliable in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, the UNESCO's World Heritage Center page isn't a reliable source?
 * Btw, the NPOV policy states that all views should be shown, that means the ones supporting the face that Al-Karaouine is the oldest university in the world and the ones stating that it isn't.
 * I will wait for some external opinions, since, as the TP archive shows, no consensus was found basing on the same arguments.
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already had issues with a group of users at University of Al-Karaouine (as have others) when I tried to include the actual foundation date of that institution supported by numerous reliable sources. They claimed that 1947 is the foundation date while it is absolutely undisputed that it has been founded sometimes in the 9th-century.
 * It seems that a group of users decided that university is a solely Christian-European concept, in the lead of List of oldest universities in continuous operation you'd read that institutions from elsewhere "...were culturally dissimilar from the European universities where the concept of the modern university came from." which is a bit silly considering that e.g. Al-Karaouine was a degree granting multidisciplinary learning center at a time when e.g. Oxford was a group of monks taking students with, comparatively, much less manuscripts to read from and rather poor scholarship both in scope and quality but whatever if that's what WP:Consensus means. --Tachfin (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be an NPOV issue with this article, and also with University. It isn't difficult to find reliable sources that refer to Karaouine as the earliest university:, , , , . It may be something that is debatable, but WP should reflect the different aspects of that debate.--FormerIP (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I definitely consider the UNESCO source as total crap but the Guinness Book of records definitely does pay to ttry and get the best advice and check what it puts in. I think it really is a matter of opinion between the sources so we should include this as 'considered by some as' the first university. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a matter of opinion it should be written that 'is the oldest... but considered by some as...', since most sources affirm that it is the oldest one.
 * Btw, I wonder if you can explain why do you consider the UNESCO as 'total crap'?
 * --Omar-Toons (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They seem to be driven by political considerations rather than scholarship and I've seen a number of their gaudy but badly researched documents which are obviously designed more to please and ease the egos of those paying for them. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I'm very disappointed that some of the previous discussion, much of it quite voluminous and containing many references, has not been adequately addressed. Second, it seems incredibly dishonest to accuse Wikipedia editors of ignoring or slighting thins ancient institution when many professional historians have - rightly or wrongly - omitted it and other non-Western institutions from the history of modern universities.  For example, the first book I grabbed off my shelves, Haskins's "The Rise of Universities," unequivocally states that "universities, like cathedrals, are a product of the Middle Ages" (p. 3).
 * I am very wary of allowing amateurs to use Wikipedia to second guess professional historians. In that vein, I believe that each individual reference needs to be listed and scrutinized and other editors given time to add their comments, opinions, and reliable sources.
 * This is a historiographical content dispute and this notice board is ill equipped to solve it. This discussion should be moved back into article Talk space where it belongs. ElKevbo (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The NPOV policy can NOT be "bypassed" through a discussion, especially since no consensus has been reached.
 * Two contradictory facts are reported by reliable sources, the NPOV policy imposes that both have to be cited.
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "I am very wary of allowing amateurs to use Wikipedia to second guess professional historians" what an unnecessary comment...On the main page it reads "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" If you're uncomfortable with that there are other venues restricted to "professionals". --Tachfin (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OR; we don't allow Wikipedia editors to make their own decisions about issues such as this. ElKevbo (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ElKevbo, it's clear just from a quick Google that professional historians do recognise the claim of Karaouine as the oldest university. And a book entitled "The University as a European Institution" is obviously not a good source to use in order to exclude non-European universities from consideration in a list article.--FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First, please re-read my comment as you misunderstand the source I quoted (hint: Haskins was speaking about all universities, not just European ones). Second, I again ask that you provide citations of professional historians, especially those who study higher education, who recognize this institution as the first university.  I specifically ask for professional historians who specialize in higher education because the crux of this matter is whether this institution was a "university." ElKevbo (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "...we don't allow Wikipedia editors to make their own decisions about issues such as this" nobody wants to make their own decision on issues such this, except maybe the ones who reject reliable sources unambiguously calling the place a university. You flashing that OR link to me does not change the nature of this dispute. In the talk page archive you linked above, I see one user, not only asking for a reliable source calling the place "the first university" but also that these sources discuss why they did say that, which is above any requirement of WP:Verifiability; as if what's in reliable sources is up to the judgement of particular editors here (WP: GREATWRONGS?). It's funny how he replies by quoting a book called "Taliban: The Unknown Enemy" and a freelance historian (Kevin Shillington).
 * Excerpt from Encyclopædia Britannica: "The Qarawīyīn Mosque is the centre of a university that was founded in ad 859; several of its schools (madrasahs) are grouped around it. The university has been renowned since the European Middle Ages as a centre of Islāmic culture. When the Muslims were expelled from Spain beginning in the 13th century, many came to Fès and to Qarawīyīn, bringing knowledge of European and Moorish arts and sciences. By the 14th century there were said to be 8,000 students at the university " . So, Britannica is crap, UNESCO world heritage website is crap, Guiness book is crap, other books are crap, just how much evidence do you intend on rejecting?
 * This issue is clearly appropriate for this board, as attempts to discuss it on the talk page have been largely rebuffed or arguments not taken into consideration. Any time a user tries to discuss this, he simply receives the response see the archives of this page, this has been discussed before or just gets thrown a collection of poor quality sources like "Taliban: The Unknown Enemy" or Kevin Shillington, the freelance historian.
 * Frankly I don't mind if you want to keep that page restricted to European-Christian medieval institutions. The reader however, should be made aware of this; for example by stating that the page is only about learning institutions that received papal bulls, taught in Latin or were founded by a charter from a European King...etc --Tachfin (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When an unknown person tells me that they know history better than the published, respected historians with which I am familiar and claims a fact that contradicts what those historians have published then I have every right to demand sources that match the quality of the sources that I have (and note that I don't have a large number of history sources at hand so it's quite telling that I am so easily able to verify my assertion). Other encyclopedias and popular press books like Guinness do not have the same status as peer-reviewed academic publications although it saddens me that some editors believe that they do that doesn't change the fact that they don't.
 * Maybe for others this is an issue of neutral point of view. For me, it's purely about the quality of the available sources.  And so far the quality of the sources used to support the idea that there is widespread agreement that this institution is the first university instead of Bologna or even Paris is lacking. ElKevbo (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm having a little trouble determining who's a historian specializing in higher education, but I am not sure I should have to do that in the first place. I see numerous mentions of this university being founded in the 9th century. What is the rationale for saying that this is wrong? Something in the definition of university perhaps? Right offhand this does seem to be a problem of neutrality, unless there is a truly fantastic reason for making the distinction. I mean, nobody is saying American high schools don't get to be called secondary education, after all. Elinruby (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with the definition of the university, i.e. there is none. To reiterate an argument,  yes, al-Qaraouine was not a "university" in the Medieval European sense, but that is because the Medieval European definition was very narrow and dependent on specific features that are unique to a Christian clergy (e.g. privilege of jus ubique docendi, exemption from canon law on benefices). So its hardly elucidating point of comparison. The logic here is slippery as classifying apples and oranges". Yes, apples are fruit (i.e. Medieval Studium generale are "universities"). Yes, oranges aren't apples (al-Qaraouine is not a Studium generale). But it doesn't follow that therefore oranges aren't "fruit".   Is this supposed to be a list of fruit or a list of apples?  If the latter, than the article title should be changed to something less ambiguous. Walrasiad (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you deal with it in the way of Third oldest university in England debate, i.e. reporting all sides of the issue? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. So far the case is pretty weak with only a few references from non-specialized sources but it's worth including them since they are very high profile. ElKevbo (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly: It all depends on how one defines "university." In my experience and education as a scholar of U.S. higher education, historians of education believe that Bologna and Paris were the first institutions we can legitimately classify as universities.  So when someone tells me something that contradicts my education and the excellent references I have at hand, it's perfectly reasonable for me to request high-quality sources confirming the position that is being asserted.  In a situation like this that depends very much on nuance, we must turn to professional historians who specialize in this area; popular press sources like Guinness and other encyclopedias that don't even cite references are not useful at all. ElKevbo (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling ths a matter for scholarship is rather stretching it I think. It is more a matter of opinion. The Guinness book is a very good source for highest biggest oldest etc etc. That really degrades the idea of scholarship I think to how many angels could stand on the point of a pin. It might be good for an exercise in argument but really otherwise it is like arguing which dog is best in dog show. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And we wonder why many experts avoid and denigrate Wikipedia... ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So as I understand it no one is contesting the continual operation of Al Karaouine, but the sticking point is rather the term "University"? I think Itsmejudith definitely has the right idea then.  Another option would be to also have a List of oldest institutes of higher learning in higher learning in continuous operation and cross-link between the two pages, but since the concept of a university has evolved so much since its original use, I think it would make more sense to explain both versions on the same page.  A13ean (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That means the exclusion of non-European institutes from the list, which doesn't cure the NPOV problem.
 * The NPOV policy implies that all opinions have to be shown and, as demonstrated by the cited references above, many claim that these institutes were Universities, the NPOV imposes that they mush be added to the list, in addition to an explicative notice about the fact that it is a contested position, as i proposed above. --Omar-Toons (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Britannica was cited as reference for "Islamic University". But EB say otherwise :"The modern university evolved from the medieval schools known as studia generalia; they were generally recognized places of study open to students from all parts of Europe. The earliest studia arose out of efforts to educate clerks and monks beyond the level of the cathedral and monastic schools." and "The first true university was founded at Bologna late in the 11th century." --Yopie (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No sorry it doesn't say otherwise, you're just quoting it out of context. EB actually says "The earliest Western institution that can be called a university was.." then continuing in the same context of "Western institutions" it says "The first true university was founded at Bologna". The whole paragraph is about how the "modern university" evolved from medieval "studia generalia". That does not mean that any institution that wasn't originally "studia generalia" cannot be called a university, that would be just WP:SYNTH (see the apples & oranges example above). Quotes I've provided above are clear: Does EB call it a university? Yes. Does it say that it was founded in the 9th century? Yes. Are there many other WP:RS that state the same? Yes.
 * Some are just ignoring to address the NPOV issue in accordance with other Wikipedia policies i.e Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia isn't the place for setting the record straight because it follows WP:Verifiability what's been largely published in the mainstream reliable sources always merits inclusion no matter how wrong you think it is. --Tachfin (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For that matter, I saw references to institutions of higher education in India, Cairo and China, but did not want to examine the pedigree of each claim. I suspect we aren't talking about those schools here because they are no longer in operation. If in fact we're using a definition of university that requires that the institution have an exemption from or place in the canon law of the papal church, then it is not surprising that only Christian institutions seem to qualify. Seems like a fine example of the the problems with the history most English speakers are taught in school. This is not a trivial issue, say I, thinking back to the number of people who refused to believe, a few years ago, that Iraq had a civilization. I feel strongly enough about this to enlist some reference librarians if need be to find sources dry enough and musty enough and on-paper enough to satisfy anyone. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Elinruby's assessment. I think the main problem we have to resolve here is what is what is this list about? There is already a List of medieval universities in chronological order which adheres strictly to the "Western" definition. The only difference between that list and this one, is that defunct universities are excluded here. Otherwise, this list does not seem to be supplying any additional information. It seems to me there is room for flexibility in the latter, so that we can have two lists - a list of old Western universities (apples only) and a list of old universities generally speaking (fruits as a whole). Trying to restrict the latter to the Western Medieval criteria seems superfluous replication. Walrasiad (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this is better than what I suggested as an alternative above -- the more inclusive list should be at the "oldest university" page. A13ean (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please provide some reliable sources other than Guinness and UNESCO supporting this claim? So far I haven't seen anything in the mainstream education history literature. There may be something buried above so please feel free to call our attention to it. ElKevbo (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I caution my colleagues that Wikipedia is not the place for editors to push agendas or correct perceived (or actual) wrongs. It may be that the mainstream education history defines "university" in such a way as to exclude institutions outside of Europe and northern Africa. But it's not up to us to correct that; the historians must do that and then we can cite them. That's the crux of WP:OR. ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Those seem to be inappropriately narrow goalposts you're trying to erect there, El Kevbo. Maybe someone will do your work for you in terms of "mainstream education history literature", but I can see cites above from educationalists and historians, which really ought to be good enough. --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering there are journals such as History of Education, perhaps asking the sources should be "mainstream education history literature" isn't narrowing the goalpoats too much. Nev1 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's just unnecessary hoop-raising. Enough sources which are reliable for the information have been provided to show that this is a topic on which opinions vary. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What sources??? ElKevbo (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources I posted above, just for example. Niall Ferguson is a professor of history . Nick Foskett is a professor of education . And sources that are not professors, such as UNESCO, Britannica, Frommers should not be disregarded. They are extremely good evidence that there are widely-held opinions which are at variance with the POV currently represented by Wikipedia. --FormerIP (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also this Thomson Reuters report. I think we have enough good sources to mention this university, although we have to make it clear that it does depend on definition. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Farid, Alatas Syed [2006]: "From Jami ah to University: Multiculturalism and

Christian-Muslim Dialogue," Current Sociology, 54: 112–132. Not history, but looks scholarly.
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=p3NGjbEoW5MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=karaouine&ots=gtG-dqWwtX&sig=BA3mh5vuLZ0a38Mb2zf503gh1sY#v=onepage&q=karaouine&f=false; interestingly that one also distinguishes Karaouine from European universities, but on the basis that it was regional in nature, not national.
 * http://umkn-dsp01.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/3951 <-- appears to be a thesis, which counts as a reliable source afaik...
 * http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eTslPpwSWgoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA17&dq=karaouine&ots=ZRF6md0RV0&sig=hLgL1CL_Ts3gloFjNOKDTDmrpA0#v=onepage&q=karaouine&f=false on p 24.
 * I excluded references in passing, references to Guinness, and references to Wikipedia, as well as everything that didn't pass the giggle test as a reliable source, anything where I could not find the name of the university within 1-2 minutes and so on. Still took me about 15 minutes only to find these, and I have not yet heard back from the reference librarian. It also occurred to me that the Encyclopedia Britannica article probably has references, but the library I was at had a different encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The last article is about the philosophy of education, but I have seen multiple references to the Najjar 1958 article it cites as an authority on the point of this university's founding -- though I eliminated many of the others as only peripherally on-topic (thoughts on teaching biophysics or whatever).
 * While clicking around I did see a book by someone named, I think, Perkin, that said that the first true universities were in Europe because those were independent of religious and other authorities, which earlier institutions in other places were not. I feel the need to have a public belly-laugh on this point. Go tell Galileo how independent science was of the Church, even centuries later. Nor do I think this point is completely germane. I agree that science and religion are separate subjects, but Catholic University in Washington D.C. and Santa Clara University in California are both well-respected universities that have religious ties. Shrug. Elinruby (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal made above to have two lists: 1. Medieval universities in continuous operation (Christian European sens) 2. List of oldest universities in continuous operation (generic sens). --Tachfin (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * personally I would be confused by the opposition of medieval and oldest. If the parties go this route, I'd suggest oldest in Europe in continuous operation vs oldest in the world in continuous operation. That would be a problem if the ones in Europe were older, but I think we've decided they are not. But any solution that is less Eurocentric than the present situation and is acceptable to others would be ok with me. Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't been involved in this discussion recently, but was involved in a similar one some years ago. At that time, there was a distinction made between universities and institutions of higher learning. A crucial element of that distinction concerned the nature of European universities, which were autonomous self-governing corporate entities.  This autonomy contributed to the development of the concept of academic freedom which is central to the medieval university and its modern descendants.
 * The widely accepted emphasis on Universities' corporate autonomy is not intended to discriminate against non-Western European institutions, for it excludes such Western institutions as the Platonic Academy, and European cathedral and monastic schools. The point is that all institutions of higher learning are not necessarily universities and that the first higher learning institutions having that corporate autonomy emerged in Western Europe in the Twelfth Century.
 * A useful step forward would be to supplement the List of oldest universities in continuous operation (in the Western corporate sense) with a list of specific higher educational institutions that did not have its autonomous corporate structure. This second list could draw on the outline of Ancient higher-learning institutions, and draw specific institutions from the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation, the List of the oldest schools in the world, and other similar articles. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to exaggerate the degree of autonomy. Many were put strictly under the imperial and/or episcopal leash and frequently interfered with.  Popes dictated curriculums, the imperial chancellary dictated appointments.  The autonomous aspect is really only with respect to the local town authorities.  Their existence as "corporations" simply meant they were on par with any other guild or livery company.  In many respects, madrassahs were much more independent academically, there being no central authority to dictate what could and could not be taught, or to deny diplomas because of a particular opinion (in many ways, madrassahs were closer to Bologna, than Bologna was to Paris).
 * I do agree with your assertion that other higher learning institutions should be paid attention to. Some cathedral schools, e.g. Chartres, Laon, Rheims, Liege and Utrecht come to mind, surpassed many "universities" in terms of higher learning and student catchment, at least for a spell. Only three of them - Salamanca, Toulouse and Orleans - were elevated to universities, and are already on the list. Walrasiad (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft text?
Thanks for the sources. Can someone please propose a draft of how this will be described in the various articles that this will affect? ElKevbo (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My proposals:
 * on the article University of Al-Karaouine:
 * The Al Karaouine institution is considered by the Guinness book(reference), the UNESCO(reference), and many historians(references) as the oldest continuously operating academic degree-granting university in the world. However, this claim is contested by many other historians who consider that medieval universities in the Islamic world and medieval European universities followed very different historical trajectories until the former were expanded to the later in modern times(reference), and the certificate delivered in non-European universities deviated in concept and procedure from the medieval doctorate out of which modern university degrees evolved(reference).
 * on the article University of Bologna:
 * The university received a charter from Frederick I Barbarossa in 1158, but in the 19th century, a committee of historians led by Giosuè Carducci traced the founding of the University back to 1088, making it the oldest university in the world(references). This claim is, however, contested by other historians who consider that the oldest continuously operating university in the world is the University of Al-Karaouine in Fez, Morocco(references).
 * on the lists of universities:
 * Adding non-European universities to the List of oldest universities in continuous operation and copying the two paragraphs above for both universities as a note ;
 * Creating a second list: the List of oldest European universities in continuous operation, with a note about the fact that European universities are considered by some historians as the oldest of the world, not only in Europe ;
 * Renaming the article List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation (that was created in order to eliminate non-European universities from the previous list, which is clearly POV) as List of oldest universities in continuous operation in the Muslim world, with a note about the fact that the list is contested by the ones who consider that non-European high-degree learning institutions weren't universities.
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. ElKevbo (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also support failing article rename. --Tachfin (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider condensing the text for the University of Bologna to The university received a charter from Frederick I Barbarossa in 1158, but in the 19th century, a committee of historians led by Giosuè Carducci traced the founding of the University back to 1088, which would make it the oldest university in the world(references). This claim is disputed by historians who consider that the oldest continuously operating university in the world is the University of Al-Karaouine in Fez, Morocco(references). Somehow the way its worded just seemed a bit long.--Factchk (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin
This edit was undone concerning comments made by Gorbachev in the domestic policy column. This sentence here I believe is pushing it but was later reverted by an editor who commented his opinion that it was true even though the links were dead,:

"Most Russians are also deeply disillusioned with the West after all the hardships of 90s,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&action=historysubmit&diff=464286747&oldid=464285976

I think this article needs a look, it's becoming similar to the Hugo Chavez one. 118.92.71.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

This article could use the attention of outside editors for a number of reasons. a13ean (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Promotion of the TM movement
Author Lynn McTaggart wrote, in her book, The Field, that: She is writing about data confirming the existence of the Maharishi Effect, a theory a group of people practicing Yogic Flying in one group can create a peace-inducing field which can extend for great distances and even affect the weather. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia regarding the TM and its movement, including one just about research, Transcendental Meditation research. The article on the movement has a special section just on promotion, Transcendental Meditation movement. At Transcendental Meditation movement there is a debate over whether the material on the promotion can be presented by itself in the "Promotion" section, or whether we need to include substantially more context. My view is that the clauses are independent, and that the sentence is comparable to one like "Although John Doe was not personally popular, he was considered the best player on the team." In that case, the lack of personal popularity and the performance on the team are separate issues even if the author juxtaposes them in a single sentence. Other editors say that the entire sentence must be presented, even the part which has nothing to do with promotion. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    03:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests, the sheer weight of data is compelling. 

Full quote from Source:


 * I disagree with Will Beback's analysis of this discussion. One question concerns whether the first sentence," Although the TM organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests,..."   can be referenced in the article outside the context of the rest of the paragraph. Mctaggert is using a stylistic writing technique, and juxtapositions the opening sentence in which she suggests others have ridiculed  the TM organization, with an overview of the extensive research which she says is compelling. Editors suggest this is the obvious reading of the paragraph and to use that paragraph in any other way is to misrepresent the source and its meaning.  Will Beback believes the sentence may be used in isolation of the entire paragraph. I have been involved in this discusiion.(olive (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

BTW, the proposed text for the "Promotion" section is: It's my assertion that material on research, or on the Maharishi Effect or Yogic Flying, would belong in articles or sections devote to those concepts.  Will Beback   talk    03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In her book, The Field, author Lynn McTaggart says that the "organization has been ridiculed, largely because of the promotion of the Maharishi’s own personal interests".


 * While I would agree with Will Beback that the source does appear to imply that there were concerns with the promotion of the Maharishi's own personal interests, I think one part of one sentence is not particularly strong sourcing. Is there nothing better than this? If not, are we not giving this comment too much weight?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are other sources about promotion already in the section: Transcendental Meditation movement. If McTaggart is not a reliable source for the topic we'd need to delete other comments from her.   Will Beback    talk    03:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not the reliability of the source, it's the fact that it's one part of one sentence (which appears to be open to different interpretations). Does McTaggart go into the matter in more detail in another part of the book? I'm working on the principle here that it's better not to use a source for claims similar to this one if they are not dealt with in any detail in the source itself. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern (to echo what others have said) was that by extracting the single half sentence, which actually read as a sort of off-hand comment by the author, and leaving out the rest of the paragraph, we created the impression that this was a negative comment by McTaggart, which on whole it isn’t. I therefore suggested that the sentence be removed, replaced, or used in its entirety.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this ended up at NPOV rather than V; the problem here isn't a matter of balance, it's a simple misquoting of a source. What McTaggart is doing here is a standard academic intro to a topic, which regularly follows the same format:
 * so-and-so said such-and-such about X, BUT, X actually is like this…
 * It's clear from the passage that McT wants to talk about the positive aspects of the movement while acknowledging the criticism. Extracting out the criticism and presenting it as though that was all that McTaggart said is fairly horrific quote- mining mangling.


 * Don't get me wrong, I don't care whether we use McTaggart or not, personally, but if we are going to use her then we do not slice-and-dice her words to make her say something that she would very likely disagree with. There is nothing in this passage that implies McT gives any heed to the critical perspective except to note that it's there.  If you want to talk about the critical perspectives, find an author that discusses them (I'm sure there are plenty), or find one of the critics McTaggart is pointing at (she probably gives references).  Don't make mincemeat of McTaggart.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be correct to note that McTaggart notes the existence of negative views of the movement? She is discussing critical perspectives of the movement. Are you saying that authors who make only a single comment on a topic may not be cited, and we can only use those who devote substantial verbiage to an issue? And no, McTaggart does not cite any sources for any of her assertions, some of which we cite elsewhere.   Will Beback    talk    04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I did that in an academic paper I'd get slaughtered for it by the original author (or any peer who'd read him). I don't have a problem with the quote per se, but taking it out of a context in which it is very clearly ancillary and making it a primary statement is simply misquoting.  It's bad editing.  If I were to say "Many people find dogs charming and lovable companions, but I personally think they are disgusting, filthy beasts", you can't chop it down and quote me as though I were a dog lover;  that would be absurd.  You're doing that very thing to McTaggart.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. I'd say that a statement like that could be an adequate source for an assertion that "many people find dogs lovable companions". The proposed text does not assert that McTaggart holds these views, and if that's the sticking point I'm sure we could make it clearer that she is talking about the views of others.   Will Beback    talk    05:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you can say what you like, but you're wrong. The thesis in a statement like that would be that I think dogs are filthy and disgusting; The first phrase might be anything from a bone thrown to dog-lovers to pure sarcasm, but it is most assuredly not the point being made.  It's just a one-off, not a quotable quotable.


 * This is what comes of living in a FOX News world, where people search for that one dumb quote they can use to advantage and ignore anything reasonable, substantive, and on-topic. That is not the way to write an encyclopedia, though.


 * That being said, I'd be more comfortable with you presenting it as a statement that McT attributes to others. The problem is, McT doesn't really specify who those others are.  She simply notes that there has been criticism, then moves on to what she wants to talk about.  Without that attribution, I don't think McT is all that useful for discussing criticisms of the movement; her statement is pretty much limited to 'some people have said...'.  That's because - as people keep pointing out - criticism of the movement is not her focus in this passage, but just something she's acknowledging in a pro forma manner.


 * Really, you can find better sources to say the same thing. Warping McT's work out of true does a disservice to her and the project.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As is often the case, I believe that Ludwigs2 is basically right here. This is clearly a fringe source, totally unreliable on positive statements of fact about TM and its reception. It may be better as a source on negative statements of fact, but even for negative statements of fact I would be very careful with this source. And in this case the negative statement is a throw-away remark. I am not sure what the idea is for use in the article. I think it would be a good idea to use it in conjunction with mainstream sources to state something that is also covered by those. But it's a bad idea to use it on its own, or to quote-mine the throw-away remark. Hans Adler 08:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Throw-away remarks" are still remarks, but I agree that this is fundamentally a fringe source and I agree to removing it from this and other TM-related articles in favor of more substantial sources.   Will Beback    talk    09:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The general problem with throw-away remarks is that "A holds" in an encyclopedia article has vastly more weight than "In spite of A, B holds" does in a secondary source. E.g my own mathematical publications contain many remarks on earlier research that I would not have made if I had any reason to suspect that this kind of quote-mining would be applied to my work. They went through peer review, but I am absolutely sure that these historical remarks were not checked for anything more than superficial plausibility and spelling. If that.
 * Similarly, our own throw-away remarks here in Wikipedia also hold less weight than stand-alone statements of fact and therefore require less robust sourcing. In fact, unless they are particularly contentious they can often go without any sourcing. They just given article depth, and it's not a big problem if they are not completely true, so long as they are morally true. (It is a problem and should be avoided, but not a big one.) Hans Adler 10:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs that using that content we have now referenced to the McTaggert, part-of-a-sentence, taken-out-of-context source, in an academic paper, even a student's, would have a less than positive backlash for the writer. I agree with Hans that McTaggert is probably not a RS for comments on the Maharishi Effect research. The research while peer reviewed is edgy and should best be sourced to scholarly academic sources, journals, text books and so on. I don't agree that content should be added to articles with out sources to give depth. What a bag of snakes, in my experience. As a side note, the TM articles constitute a highly contentious area of editing. Many thanks to editors who commented here adding depth to this discussion.(olive (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I continue to disagree with the view expressed by some here that the first clause is dependent on the second. However in the interest of peace and consensus I have inserted a brief summary of the second clause, replacing the incorrect summary added by Luke Warmwater101. As for Littleolive oil's aside, she has been among the most active editors of the topic and to the extent that it is contentious she has been part of the contention.   Will Beback    talk    22:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Eurabia
An article in Race & Class by Matt Carr (abstract here, full text available there) is being cited to include a comparison of the conspiracy theory Eurabia to the conspiracy theory Zionist Occupation Government. The article is cited by a number of other works. Jayjg has argued that this is a WP:REDFLAG claim and that Matt Carr's view being included on this violates WP:UNDUE. I've raised the issue of REDFLAG at RS/N, but for the issue of the inclusion of the material being UNDUE on the basis that the author is "not-notable", is it undue weight to include the material in this diff on this source?  nableezy  - 00:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've pointed out that this source is a freelance journalist, not an academic, and this specific claim isn't cited by any other works. In fact, I'm not aware of any academics who make this claim. It's unclear why so much weight is being given to a freelance journalist who has published what appear to be unique views in a single journal article. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help on an RfC
There is an active Request for Comment (RfC) procedure under way at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword that is centered on the issue of whether or not the term "universal acclaim" is being used in an NPOV manner within certain video game articles. Prior to the RfC, editors had been debating this point for nearly 6 weeks now and had reached an impasse. Any help that editors here could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School - Controversies section
The Controversies section in this article is entirely devoted to a single, amicably settled ACLU lawsuit that was brought against the school in relation to a student production of the Broadway musical, Rent The ACLU alleged the school fostered an atmosphere of intolerance to homosexuals by first cancelling then reinstating the production, and by failing to sufficiently discipline three football players who posted an online video threatening the student lead actress. Cited newspaper sources report the diametrically opposed positions of the school and the ACLU on the merits of the case. The NYT-sourced position asserted by school was that it had in fact taken steps to foster tolerance, and had been recognized by the ADL for its efforts to that effect. NPOV requires the article to include the school's positon that it had taken steps to foster tolerance. Two other editors are willing to include this language. Persistent edit warrior Guy Macon, however, is claiming a nonexistent "consensus" to exclude such a reference to sourced material.174.254.81.53 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Content completely aside, I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. You have reverted something like 10 times in the past 24 hours; you don't get to evade policy by IP-hopping. (Although there's more than enough reverts on the one IP to block it.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And now that I look into the content dispute, it appears that your claim that Guy is reverting against consensus is 100% false. The user reverting against consensus would be you, not him. I know this isn't ANI or ANEW, but it looks like a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the IP is edit warring, but neither Guy Macon nor myself are entirely innocent. I think I mistakenly crossed 3RR combining some edits from 2 days ago and some edits from yesterday, depending on whether you count each of my edits as a revert or not; Guy Macon crossed 3RR several times, though I know that in this case he has a self-admitted autism spectrum disorder that sometimes makes it difficult for him to stop, especially in cases where it's obvious that the other side is wrong. I have no doubt whatsoever that the two IP addresses are either the same person or are two people working together offline, given that 174's first edit to WP was to revert Guy Macon to return to the other IP's preferred version. Yesterday I asked for full protection, at the IP's version, so that at least the edit warring would stop; Fastily declined at first, then, about an hour ago, semi-protected the article.
 * Having said all of that, I do think it would help to have some input from other uninvolved editors. As far as I can see, the IP would prefer that the entire controversy section be removed, or, at least, reduced to a sentence or two, because xe feels this much focus on "controversy" is undue, that the school is generally a good place (I presume the IP is associated with the school as an employee, a student, or alumni), and that since the lawsuit was settled out of court, there is no admission of guilt.  Myself, Guy Macon, and 72Dino (who has been involved to a lesser degree on the article's talk page) believe that this story is the primary reason why the school is notable above and beyond the default notability of all secondary schools, and should have a prominent place in the article.  In addition, there is a fundamental disagreement about what the LA Times article says (it's on the talk page, but the basic question is whether the statement in the LA Times article about what some students posted on Facebook is a fact, or is a part of the ACLU lawsuit allegations).  And, finally, the IP has been consistently incivil, alleging the article about a great school has been hijacked by the ACLU and gay rights sympathizers. I've asked the IP time and time again to bring this up on a noticeboard, since I see a clear, policy based consensus to include the information, so in a way I'm glad it's finally here.  So I'd love for some extra eyes and opinions about the proper way to represent the whole shebang. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that, due to the awful WP:NHS guideline, we have a lot of articles on schools that aren't really notable, and that any national news story involving a school can and should take up a large part of its article. If we had a WP:ONEEVENT guideline for schools the way we do for people, then yeah, this would probably be considered one event, but then again if we applied the people notability guidelines to schools then most of our school articles would be deleted. TLDR: stuff covered in the Washington Post and New York Times is more encyclopedic than children's sports statistics. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A few hours ago Admin Fastily semi-protected Corona del Mar High School for 14 days (Persistent vandalism). This stopped 68.4.61.51/174.254.81.53 from continuing his edit war. As for the charges of NPOV violations, I take any hint that I might have a NPOV problem very seriously, because I know that I might be blind to it.  If anyone thinks I am not being neutral in my edits, please tell me so I can make corrections.


 * In this case the NPOV problem appears to be the IP editor. He is a SPA who has consistently pushed to have the page be purged of anything critical of the school (calling a threat of rape and murder against a female student a "prank", for example) and has already been 3RR blocked once over it. I strongly suspect that he is somehow involved -- that either he works for the school or attends the school or has a child in the school.


 * My question for the noticeboard is this: do you think that the IP has been POV pushing, and if so, do you think that it would help if I asked an admin to apply a 1RR restriction on the topic of Corona del Mar High School? ---Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that 1RR would be helpful. The user in question isn't even close to adhering to 3RR, so there is no reason to think that 1RR would restrain hir. As for content, I think it's possible that the comment about the school saying it tried to foster tolerance could be included - we're not endorsing the claim, we're just saying they said it. Could you explain (preferably on the talkpage) why you don't think it's a good idea to include it? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I will do it on the article talk page tomorrow. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopper claims neutrality violated by use of reliable sources
Over at Christianity and abortion and Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, we've got an IP-hopping user removing information sourced to The Age and replacing it with uncited material because it claims that in order to observe NPOV, we must include the side of a debate not backed by any reliable sources. Am I correct in saying that this is exactly the wrong interpretation of WP:NPOV? (See discussion at the talkpage: Talk:Christianity_and_abortion.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP is wrong. If their edits continue, take them to an appropriate noticeboard over their continued disruption of the encyclopaedia and ask for administrator assistance. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have protected Christianity and abortion for 3 years per Remedy 1 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. I do not believe that Anglican Diocese of Melbourne falls under the remit of the Abortion decision, so I did not semi-protect it; however, I did revert the re-addition of the blog and added it to my watchlist, and will semi-protect the article (for a short period of time) if the problem continues to prevent disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Russian elections
Apparently everyone seems to agree that it's not NPOV, but disagree on who it's slanted towards. Could benefit from outside editors, especially since this is currently a hot topic. a13ean (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Russian legislative election, 2011
 * 2011 Russian protests
 * I'm afraid there is no way to avoid serious problems with most Russian media controlled by the government and thus unreliable sources, and the distinct possibility of involvement by agents of the Russian government in our editing. To say nothing of the enthusiasm displayed by Western media. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of reporting on this from outside of Russia, so finding sources should not be a problem. At any rate, we should attempt to find English-language sources whenever available.  As for "the distinct possibility of involvement by agents of the Russian government in our editing", let's try to assume good faith here.  a13ean (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Russian Internet media are not controlled by the government. Most popular resources, like Lenta.ru, report all protests and arrests fairly, sometimes even with an anti-government slant. Grey Hood   Talk  20:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The government certainly does meddle in internet media - like tweets on the protests (botnet probably goverment work), for instance, or forums on VKontakte (FSB pressure), according to the BBC. That said, as mentioned on the talk page, some editors do seem to be deleting pro-protest edits with pretty dodgy edit summaries that misrepresent WP policy. Particularly Greyhood, as a matter of fact. I'm not at all saying you're a government agent, but it seems you're bent on getting rid of much information that casts a good (yet neutrally-presented and well-sourced) light on the protesters. To be fair, you've slowed since I posted on the talk page.Malick78 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malick, I just make edits and discuss them if they are found not at all good. When it comes to protesters, I just tried to insert the new information and remove the outdated one. Grey Hood   Talk  00:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, the so far jokingly rejected attempts of the government to meddle in Vkontakte just show that Internet is not controlled in Russia. There is a speculation, though, that by 2016-2018 most Russians will have Internet access, and by that time the government will be controlling the web. But for now the situation is different. Grey Hood   Talk  00:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Greyhood, you do not just "remove outdated" info. Here you remove a quote by Mikhail Gorbachev saying: "Gorbachev is not in any official position to place his criticism on par with the top politicians in other countries; he is a marginal opposition politician in Russia with dismal ratings". His opinion was significant, and you removed it because he called for a rerun of the elections. Here you removed info from a respected radio station, Ekho Moskvy, saying it was "apparently self-published"!!!! I guess that makes the BBC self-published, does it? And here, you twist things in a most worrying way: a) you call Commonwealth of Independent States "abroad", as if it's not dominated by Russia and as if it is neutral. b) "The overall results were not challenged in court by any parties which participated in the election, but the marginal non-parliamentary parties" - this skilfully elides the fact that the parties that "participated" (I think you mean "got seats") were hand-picked by the government (other "marginal" parties weren't allowed to register, or their votes were stolen meaning they didn't get enough votes to have seats... making them, beautifully and self-fulfillingly, "marginal"). Each edit you make, Greyhood, seems designed to spin in favour of United Russia/Putin, and belittle the opposition. Frequently your edit summaries bear little relation to your edits/WP policies. Here, you repeatedly misquote WP:CRYSTAL - complaining about an article about past events, when CRYSTAL refers to "anticipated events". That's why I think you are disruptive, wikilawyering, and not at all interested in "discussion". Malick78 (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Here, the last link you mention, I haven't made a single edit so far, to begin with, so I didn't misquote anything and your accusation in wikilawyering is utmost unjustice in this case. But now I'll perhaps go and voice my opinion there.
 * Re: Gorbachev, my position is very simple: comments from marginal opposing politicians have too little weight, whether negative or positive. And I see the practice of ignoring such marginal opinions implemented on many political articles. The case with Gorbachev is a bit more difficult, since he was top politician 20 years ago. If other users think this background is important enough to mention his view, despite his obvious COI and not representing Russia's position in any way (he has no significant support in population), than OK, but until the consensus is made clear or the discussion on talk is started I have a right to challenge and remove the information obviously contradicting existing practices as I understand them.
 * Re: Ekho - I have deleted that because of the other self-published looking primary source from an organisation with no clear legal status or notability. I haven't noticed the Ekho source, sorry, we all make mistakes sometimes, you too. Ekho, btw, is not exactly respected with a large part of Russia's population and its anti-government bias is well known, so it should be used as a source very accurately.
 * Re: CIS. There are 9 other countries. Some of them are in very strained relations with Russia.
 * Re: "results were not challenged by any parties which participated in the election". That's correct. And I didn't mean only the parties which got seats. "but the marginal non-parliamentary parties" - yes, when I was writing this, mostly marginals protested. But since then it has changed somewhat.
 * Malick, I act perfectly in the way any reasonable editor would act, though perhaps sometimes I'm too WP:BOLD. I make edits I consider necessary and I can explain why, I respect the discussion, when it is started on talk, and I respect the consensus, when it is achieved. Disruption means avoiding proper discussion and ignoring the consensus, and I'm very far from it. As for the impression my edits make on you, that's not something anyone should bother about so long as I make my edits without violating policies. Grey Hood   Talk  13:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about the CRYSTAL thing - I conflated you with VsevolodKrolikov - many apologies (you have similar views and behaviour, guess that's why ;) ). I stand by the rest though. Btw, Ekho's "anti-government bias" could just be being neutral, you know ;) As for violating policies - well, misrepresenting and deleting sources as mere "blogs" when they're in fact published by the New Yorker (and are opinion pieces) is an example that springs to mind.Malick78 (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With VsevolodKrolikov, whom I respect a lot, we have quite different views on some points, and quite different editing preferences, so I guess you conflated us only because we were both opposing you in some particular questions recently. Painting all your opponents the same colour and making subtle allegations of sockpuppetry or other violations is not the wisest and nicest thing to do. Grey Hood   Talk  14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall, I see no further need in this discussion. Some my edits stay in the articles in question, and some gained consensus to be reverted, which I never breached since I respect collaborative environment. If you have some personal issues with me, you may go to more relevant noticeboards. If some questions remain unresolved, we may resolve them on the talk pages of particular articles.
 * Let's make a bottom line on this: we all make mistakes sometimes, and we disagree on certain things, but this all is not the reason to focus discussion on users instead of articles and policies. Grey Hood   Talk  14:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No allegation of sockpuppetry was intended - just you are birds of a feather. The fact that VK forgot to sign his last two comments at the AFD probably didn't help me either ;) As simple and innocent as that. As for drawing a line - if you are more neutral and more constructive, I and others will have less reason to complain.Malick78 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, said on the other discussion but forgot to say here: apologizes accepted and hope we will indeed engage in more constructive discussions in more relevant places. Grey Hood   Talk  15:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely worried by Greyhood's activities and I suspect some special interest on his part. He is stubbornly turning Vladimir_Putin into a fan article. While Russia has anti-Putin protests and the biggest civil unrest since 1993, the article effectively says "Putin is universally popular, most popular leader in the world", blah-blah. Greyhood, for example, fought tooth and nail to exclude even a simple factual sentence: "However, recent events and polls show that popularity of Putin is on the decline." It looks like Putin is his living God or something. And his wikilawyering is indeed extremely stubborn, opinionated, irrational. He simply bends every possible rule to make an excuse for his actions, erases high-quality citations of top periodicals, etc etc. He is on a Holy War here and he must be stopped. Gritzko (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (interesting edit conflict) I hope peace breaks out. Greyhood is a valuable and courteous editor - you should have witnessed his masterly trimming down last year of the Russia article from the bloated mess that it was. From what I can see of his edits on this topic, there is a genuine concern, based upon a close familiarity with the subject, that there is not enough due diligence performed with sources. I don't agree with all of what he's said. (For example, I would be more generous in giving weight to Gorbachev's views given that he used to be head of the USSR. It is certainly true that he's an irrelevance in contemporary Russia, but his words attract attention outside of Russia.) But Greyhood deserves to be taken seriously if he does raise objections - even if ultimately you still think he's wrong. On the other hand, those of us familiar long-term with Russian politics perhaps need to take more time to explain and provide more evidence in treating sources on all sides in a situation like this with kid gloves. To put it another way (and with no intended slight at any editor here) Russian politics isn't for people who need closure. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that Greyhood is overdefending Putin - cutting any new negative info as "recentism" has crossed over into wikilawyering and being disruptive. Meanwhile, over on 2011 Russian protests he's really taken the biscuit with a blatant edit which twisted the source unacceptably: Here, Greyhood took this source, ""Интерфакс" со ссылкой на пресс-службу ГУ МВД по Москве сообщает, что в митинге приняли участие 25 тысяч человек. В то же время блогеры усомнились в этих данных. Корреспондент "Ленты.ру" оценил количество собравшихся в 5-7 тысяч человек. В правоохранительных органах отметили, что мероприятие проходило без происшествий." and wrote in the article, "On 12th December [...] the 25,000 meeting of pro-Kremlin youth groups supported Putin and United Russia and celebrated the Constitution." He meant, presumably, "25,000 strong". The source, for the benefit of non-Russian speakers, says that Interfax reported 25,000 at the meeting, but that Lenta.ru (the publishers of the article!) thought there were just 5-7,000 at the demo. He ignored the writer of the article, and used the higher, more pro-kremlin figure, that the article had rejected. This is his most blatantly POV edit (of a long list of blatant edits). He really needs a warning, in my opinion.Malick78 (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Malick78, if I need a warning, than I would prefer to get it from more neutral editors rather than you and Gritzko who openly declare their negative attitude against the Russian government. With this article, I just haven't read the article properly. I've made few more mistakes when I expanded the articles recently, but I corrected some of them later. This is just a normal editing process, and in my opinion it is exactly the assumption of bad faith and openly negative attitudes to the subject of the articles which disrupts editing. Grey Hood   Talk  21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Me saying that Putin is an authoritarian leader qualifies as "negative attitude against the Russian government", right? No, Greyhood! You're too liberal! That is negative attitude against Russia! High treason! Gritzko (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

New dodgy source from Greyhood
Greyhood seems to think that this is a reliable source for Russian legislative election, 2011. Can we get some opinions on it? In my view, the fact that it says "15,000" Nashi members rallied on Dec 6 (when other sources say 5,000), and that it says things like, "В результате около 300 человек, участвовавших в шествии, в том числе блогер Алексей Навальный, призывавший к неповиновению требованиям полиции, были задержаны. В блогах уже раскритиковали организаторов, которые анонсировали мирную акцию, а по факту спровоцировали беспорядки и аресты случайных прохожих." - "As a result [of the anti-government protest], about 300 of those who marched, including blogger Alexey Navalny, who was detained for disobeying police orders, have been arrested. In blogs the organisers, who announced a peaceful protest but in actual fact provoked disorder and the arrest of innocent passers-by, of been criticised.". Does that sound like a neutral, reliable source? The article makes no criticisms of the authorities, and just lays into the anti-gov protesters. It is not an acceptable source (NB. It was written on Dec 6, when many sites were still scared of saying anything against the authorities.) If more proof is needed, the next para says: "По мнению экспертов, обвинения в массовых нарушениях в ходе выборов, высказанные на митинге оппозиции, не имеют под собой оснований, поскольку предварительные результаты голосования по итогам подсчета большинства бюллетеней практически полностью совпадают с прогнозами социологов и результатами экзитполов." - "In the opinion of experts, allegations of mass irregularities during the election, made at the protest held by the opposition demonstrators, have no basis, since the preliminary results of the vote according to a summary of bulletins, almost all concur with predictions made by sociologists and the results of exitpolls." Who are the experts? And the sociologists? They don't say, and don't care, and neither does Greyhood. The article is completely anti-protester and makes no attempt to be neutral. For this reason, it should not be used by Greyhood here (scroll down), or on 2011 Russian protests, where he has been using it too. This really is persistent and biased editing by Greyhood, and even with the discussion here he is not interested in being more careful.Malick78 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not seem neutral. Mind you, I do not know what the norm is in Russia. But I did just go through the article -- mostly for English -- and agree that the tone is partisan in that section, ie, *they* had protests but *we* had *way* more people marching in support. I am also find it genuinely hard to believe that so many people would turn out to celebrate the return to power of an incumbent kleptocracy, but that's an opinion. Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS was somewhat puzzled by the several references to "the government and United Russia" -- doesn't getting elected make United Russia the government? Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Qnet ltd


This edit is why I'm opening noticeboard discussion. requested the deletion of the current page on Qnet ltd based on the negative bias in the article. A look through his edit history revealed that the user had also created the article QNet, which was deleted with the edit summary "WP:G11 for the most part. Nothing worth keeping". (Qnet is now just a redirect to Qnet ltd.) This suggests that Freudianr has a strong point of view regarding the subject.

On the other hand, the article is currently overloaded with negative information about the company, although there appear to be reliable sources to back up all the claims. It's been maintenance tagged, but only since 11 November 2011.

I declined the request for speedy deletion, as I don't feel the article was created in bad faith. However, I'd like a wider range of users to take a look at the article. Is it salvageable if the negative information is pared back and balanced with objective information about the company? Or is the current article so hopeless that discussion should be opened at AfD? —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it can be fixed --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  19:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that thing that is proven to be True should not be deleted, just add whatever stands in the favor of that company to achieve balance.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I did edit the article a few weeks back. Everything I added was negative but the fact is that there is no third-party reliable source out there that isn't strongly critical of the company's practices. Even looking for online information can be a challenge because QNet has set up a bunch of seemingly independent websites that are in fact empty shells singing praise about the company. From what I've seen, QNet's defense against the accusation that it forms is a pyramid scheme is a combination of "no we're not, trust us" and "our accusers are jealous or misinformed or personal enemies or disgruntled former employees or direct competitors and possibly all of the above". But I haven't found a single business analyst that has given a credible defense of their scheme and people who have denounced it include prominent journalists, economists, lawmakers in countries as diverse as Rwanda, Egypt and India. They are also absent from most if not all western countries where their business model is simply illegal. As for the info I was interested in, it concerned one of their flagship products the BioDisc which is so blatantly fraudulent in its claims that it's hard to discuss it without giggling.
 * (QNet's defense against the accusation that it forms is a pyramid scheme is a combination of "no we're not, trust us" and "our accusers are jealous or misinformed or personal enemies or disgruntled former employees or direct competitors and possibly all of the above".) I completely agree with that.--Peterjmikhail (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally, I'd like to note that this article in its current state is probably a grave cause of concern for QNet and I expect their supporters (and possibly their representatives) to fight hard over it. New investors into the scheme have to spend a very hefty sum to join so it's only natural that they will try to search for information online and if Wikipedia says QNet is considered in most serious circles... Our options are a) delete the article because it's too negative, b) keep an article that is dominated by criticism of QNet, c) keep the article but make it balanced. It may seem like WP:NPOV rules out option b) but in fact it rules out option c). Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What a mess but its retrievable, I've started cleaning up the article some of the sources are questionable and in need of improvement. Starting paragraphs with "its worth mentioning...." "It should be noted..." scream of original research and synth by the authors. The choice of renames like "QuestNet scam" when "GoldQuest" was a more obvious choice screams of NPOV issue with the authors as does the use of Fraudsandscams.com to describe the compensation plan and to headline the sourcing and information in the controversies section is also a concern, while I havent looked into the site to conider if its an RS site, the its being used in this article definately isnt neutral. more to come as work through cleaning the article up. Gnangarra 13:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That article is a shocker - first thing would be to check all sources, delete anything that is not verifiable or from an RS - plus a lot of the english makes no sense - for example - Like the style of the company, its representatives in Egypt tries to gain credibility by posting news on their tongues, or of their leaders. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been its changed a lot in the last hour, the egyptian sections is gone hollis bollis as its a WP:FUTURE event. Still working on the rest Gnangarra 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear WP:OWN problems from SPIs on that article, more eyes (and hands) are needed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ick. Clearly people who know their SEO strategies. A lot of the references cited in the article are so stilted in translation as to be almost unusable. We could use an Arab speaker. I did a fast copy edit and am willing to put a little time into sources and research. Anyone know this site? http://observers.france24.com/content/20100504-questnet-pyramid-scheme-drops-anchor-africa-burkina-faso


 * Are the people selling gold coins the same company? I thought not, until I saw the article about Dubai. Serious nastiness if it is the same people. Elinruby (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Arabic speaker, but as far as that latest is concerned - France24 is pretty solid, and off the top of my head I can't think of any other source which more reliable on current affairs in Burkina Faso. bobrayner (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Coleman Young
I can't figure which noticeboard is most appropriate for this, but the red flag went up for me on these edits:, I didn't know that the terms 'African-American' and 'white' were considered racist. Apparently the article has some history. Further input appreciated. Thanks, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * European-American?? That's funny ;) I guess I better look at the discussion page. Elinruby (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, well, these are kinda deep waters. I have family in Detroit and know it a little. I have visited quite a few times over the years and a relative's house off Jefferson Avenue was er, forcibly bought is the word I am looking for here maybe.... Anyway I think that the story of that city's decay is probably more complicated than anyone on the Talk page is dealing with. However. This question has to do with a former mayor's bio. Is he alive, is one question that might be important -- if so the article should not be blaming him for white flight or anything else without some very good sources. Just saying -- I did not investigate this point, but if you plan to edit it you should look at this. I was there visiting family and don't know when this guy was mayor, so I'd be no help on that...


 * But your specific question, huh. I have never heard the term "European-American" and think it's just silly. I believe that "African-American" is more usual than "black" any more, but like "Indian" and "Native American" preference seems to vary by individual. If I were involved in this article I would use whichever term the man used himself, unless somebody showed me a Wikipedia policy that says otherwise -- and I am pretty sure there isn't one. I do not think the term "black" is offensive. I use it myself because "African-American" sounds pompous to me, and in the many many years I spent living in black neighborhoods in the South I was never once reproved for this.


 * What I find particularly amusing tho is that whatever 222.129.105.50 has against "African-American" it isn't syllables -- he changes that to "black" but "white" to "European-American." LOL. hth Elinruby (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PS - you guys should both sign in and introduce yourselves, hehe. Elinruby (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * These don't look like good faith edits, but rather, like someone trying to make a point. That seems likely given the changes of 'African American' to 'black, and 'white' to 'European American'. The previous version is non-controversial, given the standard acceptance of the terms in the culture and on Wikipedia. I didn't do a check of the article history, nor of the discussions, but wonder if this was a reaction to some previous argument. Thanks for having a look at this. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * hard to say. I did not look at the article itself but the discussion page, well, is about what you'd expect from an impoverished city that's had race riots. Apparently someone with a rather militant black-power attitude edited it, and some other people took exception, but that was years ago and all parties appear to have moved on. (?) Thanks for the giggle. Elinruby (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about "black" being offensive (most black people I know identify that way), but "European-American" - in spite of comments suggesting the opposite cited in European American - is a phrase I've generally only heard as a white supremacist way of saying "white." (see: European Americans United, European-American Unity and Rights Organization) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"When given an explicit option of saying that they have no preference between the two terms [black and African American], between a plurality and a majority of blacks have no preference. However, among those with a preference, 'African American' has grown in acceptance although 'Black' is still preferred by more Blacks... The fundamental conclusion from these data underscores what has been found previously: A majority of blacks in America today do not have a preference for the use of the term black or African American when they are given the explicit opportunity to say so." Considering this, neither "black" nor "African American" would seem racist. Both are proper and appropriate. "European American" would not necessarily be an accurate reference to all "white" Americans. I have never seen that reference used. It seems unnecessary.Coaster92 (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Gallup News Service (9/28/07), "black" and "African American" are the two most commonly used terms used to refer to black Americans (Gallup's term). Here is a summary taken from the article about the poll results:

Ugg boots - is "It's a generic term" the mainstream view?
If you are involved in contributing to this article and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement and nationality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is about the Ugg boots article. The hatnote states that it's about the boot style, and the hatnote does not limit the discussion to the countries of origin, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore this is about the boot style in the entire world. The article has naturally attracted a severely disproportionate group of editors from Australia and New Zealand, with only a few editors from other countries. The WP:CSB project is designed to counter the kind of systemic bias that arises when one demographic group is dominant.

Ugg boots are a fashion phenomenon, with worldwide sales growing 5000% in the past 16 years. Deckers Outdoor Corporation is almost entirely responsible for this growth, and has trademarked the word "ugg" (or terms like it) in 145 countries, including all of the 29 most heavily populated countries, as the brand name for its line of sheepskin boots. Opinion polling has been introduced as evidence in the courts of several countries, that proves an overwhelming majority of the people in these countries perceive "UGG" as a brand name; Deckers has also introduced declarations from professionals in the footwear industry who stated that "UGG" is widely recognized in the industry as a brand name, not a generic term. (Walter, John F., February 25, 2003, UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al, United States District Court.)

The term "Ugg" originated in the slang of two tiny countries, Australia and New Zealand, and is in common usage there to describe a boot style. There are also 110 other countries in the world where Deckers did not trademark the term, but they are not part of Australian or New Zealand culture. So what we have here are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated ones) saying "It's a brand name," two tiny countries saying "It's a boot style," and 110 countries undecided. WP:WEIGHT, a section of WP:NPOV, clearly defines "It's a brand name" as the mainstream view, and "It's a boot style" as the minority opinion. Deckers UGG brand dominates the worldwide market for this style of boots. Australian companies only retain a significant share of the market in Australia.

A group of editors from Australia and New Zealand are attempting to treat "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view in the Ugg boots article. They are planning to change the current version of the article, which is fairly well-balanced and close to compliance with WP:WEIGHT, to a version that more closely resembles this one:  The entire "Concerns about quality" section will be removed. Four key words, "a protected trademark or," will be removed from the article lede. In addition to the changes shown, the Australian editors also want to remove the product counterfeiting cases won by Deckers worldwide. Essentially, they want to remove all the cases that Deckers won, and keep in the article all the cases that Deckers lost.

Aussie editors have repeatedly claimed that the word "ugg" has been removed from the Australian trademark registry, without any basis in fact:  The fact of the matter is that only the trademark "UGH-BOOTS" was removed from the registry, and it was for non-use. The Australian government's intellectual properties office, IP Australia, released a fact sheet stating explicitly that IP Australia could not and would not declare "uggs" to be a generic term, and that only the courts had the authority to do so. So far, no court has ruled on the matter.

The fact sheet is posted on the Deckers corporate website. Deckers could be subjected to severe civil penalties, and its corporate officers extradited to Australia and prosecuted in criminal court, if they altered or forged this official government document. This PDF scan should be treated as a reliable source. Much of the content of the IP Australia fact sheet has been mirrored by other reliable sources. The IP Australia fact sheet was once posted on the official government agency website, but it was removed. 

The "Concerns about quality" section is an expansion and correction of a single sentence that has existed in the article for several months. None of the Australian editors had any problem with it when the single sentence stated that quality testing showed an Australian company making the best ugg boots. But when the quality testing results were more accurately described as a pair of Australian "fake uggs" being the most difficult to tear apart, followed by Deckers Ugg boots as the toughest brand made of genuine sheepskin, and all the other Australian brands "fared poorly for quality," suddenly the Australian editors wanted to delete the new section, "Concerns about quality."

This encapsulates the approach of the Australian editors to this article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a brand name, or if it makes Deckers look good, they want it out of the article. If material supports the idea that "UGG" is a generic term, or if it makes Deckers look bad, they want it in the article and they want to expand upon it. The history of this article, aside from the usual vandalism that a fairly high profile subject attracts, has been low scale edit warring between a large group of Australian editors who believe "It's a generic term" should be presented as the mainstream view, and a small number of other editors who realize that "It's a brand name" should be and is the worldwide mainstream view.

The article's talk page and its archives are loaded with enormous efforts to resolve this dispute, covering a span of over one year. At the start of your response, please indicate whether "It's a generic term" should be treated as the mainstream view or the minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Also indicate whether the current version of the article should be retained, or reverted to the earlier version preferred by Australian editors that does not contain the "Concerns about quality" section, and removes all the counterfeiting cases that Deckers won. Thank you.


 * Minority view. It's 145-2, with 110 undecided. I believe the current version of the article should be retained, with the "Concerns about quality" section, the counterfeiting cases Deckers won, and the four words, "a protected trademark or" in the article lede. Phoenix and Winslow (talk)
 * I am involved. The efforts to use Wikipedia to promote the UGG trademark and UGG brand are exasperating, and have nothing to do with NPOV. We know Deckers owns the trademark "in 145 countries worldwide" (as the short lead says), and there is no reason to use an article about boots (see title Ugg boots) to hammer the reader with primary sources showing that Deckers has or has not won this or that legal battle. If it is notable, write an article on the UGG trademark legal issues, but please stop trying to use an article on boots to defend a company against counterfeiters and convicts down under (as I've asked on the talk page, please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it). The Ugg boots section is a joke as it uses a pathetic puff piece from a space-filling entertainment show with zero reliability—the "review" consisted of pulling a few boots apart, and to no one's surprise, the significantly more expensive genuine boot was harder to pull apart! The source fails WP:RS, and the information is not encyclopedic. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "... please identify any text in the article that unduly promotes some interest and we can consider removing or rewording it." Unfairly attacking the leading company in an industry "unduly promotes" all its competitors, both lawful and unlawful. By creating an article that undermines and dilutes the worldwide legal rights of a company that is obeying the law, you are (intentionally or not) enabling those who victimize that company by breaking the law. The requirements of WP:WEIGHT are clear. There are 145 countries (including the 29 most populated countries) where "It's a brand name," and only two tiny countries where "It's a boot style." Wikipedia policy forbids us from presenting "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view. The "pathetic puff piece" was sufficiently reliable for all the Australian editors (including you) to accept it when the article said, "An Australian boot was highest quality." But now that the article more accurately says, "The American company's boot was the highest quality made of genuine sheepskin," suddenly you object to the reliability of the source. The testing was done by an independent consumer advocate; if necessary, we can identify the TV station that reported it as sensationalist in nature, but that doesn't make the testing itself unreliable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Phoenix and Winslow that the current version is best. I'm not sure that the Concerns about Quality section may need better referencing.MONGO 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Phoenix and Winslow is contending that the current version is not best. Can you clarify what you mean by 'current version'. Thanks. Donama (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am disturbed that a purely legal system influenced heavily by well-funded companies - trademark - is being used to identify what is fundamentally a social construct based on common usage. It's certainly one factor to consider but it definitely isn't the only one. ElKevbo (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Public perception is constantly being manipulated, everywhere we look in mass media, including the Internet. Look at the advertising banner across the top of this page. Click on it. You're being asked for a donation. In the process, there is an effort to alter your perception so that you will believe your donation will go to a good cause. Sadly, that is the world we live in; and we must be neutral narrators describing the world we are observing, not pining away for a better world without commercialization and mass media manipulation. Deckers has successfully manipulated public perception throughout most of the world, to identify "UGG" as a brand name. Do we deny it? Do we pretend it hasn't happened? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Before making any comments, I want to be clear that P&W's request that we "state our nationality" is unreasonable. I am, however, involved in the discussions, and happy to acknowledge that.
 * Currently, there is an article on UGG Australia and another on Deckers Outdoor Corporation, both of which extensively discuss the UGG brand. There is a second part to the story, though: the style of boots, only identified as ugg boots, which originated in Australia and New Zealand. This isn't a case where a trademarked term became generic because of a failure to enforce the trademark, but where a previously-used term was trademarked after it had entered common usage. Thus it makes sense to acknowledge that there are two stories to tell: that of Deckers' and their UGG Australia brand, and the earlier and ongoing use of the term to describe a style of boots which originated in Australia, has particular cultural significance in Australian and New Zealand, and which is only properly identified under that name. To manage this we have used the multiple articles - in particular, one entirely about the brand, and a second article about the style, the latter of which acknowledges of the wider issues with the use of the term. Thus the Ugg boots article discusses the broader history, the trademark disputes where they are related to use of the term itself, and issues surrounding the boots in general, retaining balance by covering both Deckers' brand and the broader picture, and by using a hat note to link to the brand-specific article.
 * In regard to the two points raised by P&W above:
 * With the court cases, the general consensus is that cases of counterfeiting UGG Australia boots belong in the UGG Australia article, as they are specific to one brand. However, cases which impinge on the use of the term itself belong in the Ugg boots article, as they refer to the broader style rather than a single example of that style. It is a difficult line to draw, but the approach has been to look for the use of "the generic term defence" in the court case.
 * The problems raised with Concerns about Quality are the subject of an Talk:Ugg boots, so raising them here while the RfC is ongoing feels a bit like forum shopping. However, the issue is that there is only one source being used, and that source is unreliable. Consensus looks to be to remove the section, with P&W as the main proponent to include it, but consensus is yet to be determined by a neutral party. - Bilby (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You haven't discussed mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT, Bilby. What's your opinion on that question? Is "It's a boot style" the mainstream view? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a fringe issue, so no, I haven't discussed it. The question is how do we handle having a well known style, and a better known brand. The solution at the moment is to have an article solely devoted to the brand, an article devoted to the owner of the brand, and an article on the style which makes extensive mention of the brand. That seems to more than meet any weight concerns from the brand's perspective. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about fringe? This is mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Minority is not fringe. Having one or two other articles related to this subject does not absolve us of our duty to deal with this specific subject in compliance with WP:WEIGHT. Does it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No "nationality" need be marginalized simply because they have a relatively smaller populace as compared to the U.S....just wanted to be clear on that issue. The WEIGHT of any article is based on what the reliable sources tell us...I'm thinking that Bilby is correct in his last comment but a simple clarification need be made in the independent articles so as to render single page views less confusing.--MONGO 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't Australia vs. US. It's Australia and New Zealand vs. 145 countries, including China, India, Russia, the US, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Germany, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Thailand, the Congo, France, the UK, Italy, South Korea, South Africa, Myanmar, Colombia, Spain and the Ukraine. These are the 29 most heavily populated countries in the world. Tanzania (Number 30) is the most heavily populated country in the world where Deckers does not own an UGG-related trademark. Tanzania is an impoverished country near the equator, it isn't exposed to Australian culture, and I doubt that very many people there wear imported sheepskin boots of any sort.


 * Skipping past Tanzania on the list of countries by population, countries 31-35 (Argentina, Kenya, Poland, Canada and Algeria) all have Deckers-owned "UGG" trademarks registered. Country 36 (Uganda) doesn't but, like Tanzania, it is an impoverished equatorial country that is not exposed to Australian culture. This pattern repeats all the way down the list. All of this is confirmed by reliable sources. It doesn't marginalize any nationality either, Mongo. That's simply how mainstream views vs. minority views are determined. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am neither Australian nor American, and I have been involved in trying to build consensus towards a neutral article in place of the mess of unsubstantiated corporate mythology that sits in its place at the moment.

There are many matters which P&W has not seen fit to disclose here, such as his/her low-frequency edit-warring in attempting to keep the article in its current poor state (and, as a result of such edit warring, the article has been protected for the last month), but the most important factor to consider is this: This is an article about ugg boots. It is not an article about the Ugg Australia brand (which has its own article), nor is it an article about Deckers. It is reliably sourced that ugg boots were invented in Australia in the mid 1960s. P&W's contention that ugg boots were invented by an Australian emigrant to America in the 1970s is not sourced to anything more reliable than corporate mythology. Even the notion that the phrase "ugg boots" is trademarked in any country of the world other than America has never had a reliable source presented to back it up (when requested, all P&W could find was a free hosting site and a blog entry).

So, therefore, in the article about the generic ugg boot style, it is wholly appropriate for the mainstream view to be the reliably sourced description of ugg boots as a generic style invented in Australia in the 1960s. The alternative suggestion, being that ugg boots were invented in America in the 1970s, is sufficiently fringe that one would not be surprised to find a surrey underneath it.

Lastly there seems to be an unlovely streak of anti-Australian sentiment running through some of the contributions to the debate, in matters such as the description above of Australia being a 'tiny' country (Australia is in fact ten times the size of Texas), the statement recently on the talk page that Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" (sic), and the attitude shown here towards an Australian editor against whom P&W seems to be pursuing an apparently unrelated feud. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's true that Dave isn't from Australia. He's from New Zealand, which shares the same culture and slang, and predictably the same beliefs about the phrase "ugg boots." Three reliable sources agree that Shane Steadman invented ugg boots, but that small point is a distraction. Australia is geographically ten times the size of Texas, but we're talking about population; and as population goes, Australia is ranked 52nd among nations of the world, and New Zealand is ranked 123rd. The phrase "ugg boots" doesn't need to be trademarked since "UGG" is trademarked as a boot brand in so many countries. The Wall Street Journal is a supremely reliable source, and has reported that Deckers owns the trademark in over 100 countries.  The "blog entry" Dave disparages is the website of a well-known law firm.  An article about ugg boots, for over 98% of the countries of the world where the phrase is known, should be an article that is principally about the brand since in those countries, the phrase is understood to refer to the brand. We cannot allow the other 2% to determine content for the 98%. That's what WP:WEIGHT is about. Clearly, "it's a boot style" is the minority view and "it's a brand name" is the mainstream view worldwide, and the Ugg boots article should be structured accordingly. It isn't anti-Australian sentiment, Dave. It's pro-Wikipedia policy sentiment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if "X is a Canadian so it is only natural he shares the exact same views as Y who is an American" would go down very well?Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure that was a rhetorical question but for those who are wondering.... um...not. At all. Even in the English-speaking parts of the country. Elinruby (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not certain I follow all this, but for what it is worth, I have these thoughts: I do think it's a bit unreasonable to ask people their nationality. The fact that I am comfortable giving mine does not make this true of everyone, nor do I agree that this necessarily determines an editor's position. I will however say that I am a Canadian/British citizen who lives in the United States and that I have never touched any article about Ugg anything. Yes, I personally have heard of these boots as a brand. But there are many things I have not heard of. I think that weight may be the wrong argument to have about the situation though. If you already have three separate articles can you not handle the matter with a "for other uses see" notation? Or am I misunderstanding something? Seems like you have a) in Australia it's a boot b)a company has copyrighted the word outside of Australia and New Zealand, info on that discussion and c) a brand. An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)? I think there should be brief mention perhaps, with wiki links. It's not a matter of weight to my eyes so much as that if I understand the situation, there is already an article covering the material. And by the way, "Australians "are obviously associated with the various factories etc, linked to the Australian Sheepskin Association and EXTREMELY BIAS!" is not a productive comment ;) and to the best of my understanding a blog must, to be usable, have oversight by a news organization. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "An I correct in thinking that someone wants to edit a) to include bits of c)?" No, what's happening here is the Australians and the New Zealander want to edit Article A to expel everything they find inconvenient to Article C. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, the most important policy at Wikipedia. It applies to all articles. Removing inconvenient material to Article C does not enable the editors of Article A to ignore this policy. And I repeat, it isn't a blog. It's the website of a respected law firm, and the material in question is independently confirmed by a separate source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how something in article a is inconvenient to article c. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that misunderstanding is the result of my unfortunate sentence structure. Here let me try it again. They want to remove from Article A any material they find inconvenient, and expel that inconvenient material to Article C. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. You may not like my answer then, as this is essentially what I propose, with modifications. I personally fail to understand the passion being expended here, but I am trying. What is the point of having extensive discussion of counterfeit and quality issues of a brand of boot on a page about a different topic? I think it should be mentioned with a link to another page for further information. See detailed proposal below. If it doesn't work for you, perhaps you could suggest another. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go to the talk section for this article and note some of Phoenix & Winslow's comments about the importance of "protecting Deckers trademark rights" then the reasons for his zeal should become clear. I really don't think anyone looking to protect trademark rights needs to be editing Wikipedia.Mandurahmike (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as weight goes, my point is that if the subject of an article is that "in these countries it's a style of boot" then this is the place to discuss the usage in those countries, not elaborate on all the other uses. Yes, there are a lot of other countries in the world. Other stuff exists. And if ugg is used differently in those countries and means a type of boat or banana or red-bottomed gorilla there, then that usage is also separate and if that usage is notable then it should get its own page. The other pages can be mentioned and linked to. This opinion supposes that there are in fact separate pages. (I keep saying that because I don't see why all this would cause a year-long argument if there are three pages.) As for the law firm, I dunno. I am being told that external links are generally not considered reliable. Respected they may be, but let me take a shot and ask if Deckers appears on their client list? Hmmm. Lawyers are advocates, by their nature. Not always objective. I am having my own struggles with this policy and disagree with the way it's gotten applied in the article I am working on, so possibly I am not the person to ask, but that is what I am hearing over in my corner on *that* topic. Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Elinruby. User:Phoenix and Winslow wants to go much further than that. He wants Deckers financial details such as sales records etc mentioned and he wants almost every court case involving Deckers listed (see his first post above). He also wants the word generic removed from the article. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that is incorrect. I want one sentence, which already exists in the article mentioning how sales have increased 50-fold, to mention a dollar amount from the 1990s and a dollar amount from a few years ago to illustrate the growth. No further financial details, just total sales from two years. Wayne removed these dollar amounts just before the article was locked and I want them restored. I don't see the harm in that. Also, since "generic term" is trademark-related legal terminology (look at any government's IP website and you'll get confirmation of the fact very quickly), use of the phrase "generic term" should be limited to the trademarks discussion in this article. I'm not advocating removing it from the article entirely. I just want it limited to the trademark section to prevent confusion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, but is this in the page about the brand or about the style? If the style... well. I don't understand. But I made a proposal below and under it you would get a brief section for anything you think should be there as long as it doesn't enrage the other people, lol. Would that work for you? Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias
Elin, each article is required to obey Wikipedia policy. Whether we have two articles about ugg boots, or five articles, or 125 articles, each one must obey policy, including WP:NPOV and its subsection, WP:WEIGHT. "It's a generic term" cannot be made to appear to be the mainstream view. It is the minority view, just as the view that the Iraq War was just and good is a minority view worldwide. Each of the many articles exploring aspects of a single subject can explore nuances. Nuances about the origins of the term "ugg boot" and the boot style itself are thoroughly explored in this article, and I'm certainly not suggesting that coverage of such nuances should be diminished in any way. But each individual article, specifically this one, cannot make the minority view appear to be the mainstream view. WP:NPOV forbids it. Already, the entire first half of the article is dominated in an overwhelming manner by the minority view. Now the proponents of the minority view want to take over the second half of the article as well, removing evidence that "it's a brandname" is the mainstream view.

What we have here is the kind of systemic bias that the Wikiproject WP:CSB was intended to reduce: the subject matter has attracted a large group of editors from a particular demographic group, and they're all in agreement that the article should be edited in a manner that preserves and advances the culture of that demographic group at the expense of all others. If they were Americans rather than Australians, I suspect there would be a lot more Wikipedia editors taking my side in this dispute. See the Iraq War analogy below.

WP:WEIGHT states, "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In terms of quantity of text, the minority view roughly equals the mainstream view in this article; but in terms of prominence of placement, the minority view overwhelms the mainstream view in both the lede and the body of the article. In both the lede and the body, the minority view gets prominent placement; and if the Australian and New Zealand editors have their way, there will be a little bit about the mainstream view tacked on at the end, almost appearing to be an afterthought. The solution should be obvious to everyone. We must follow the policy here, which represents the consensus of the entire Wikipedia community. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you are mistaken when you say you are applying policy. You do not, I notice, say where YOU are from, but apparently it is neither Australia nor New Zealand. And we seem to be talking about an article about what the word ugg means in New Zealand and Australia. Why should an article about usage in certain cultures present its own topic as a minority opinion? It just needs to say that in country x y and z (somebody said there were others besides NZ/AU but I don't know what they are) ugg is a type of boot and then go on to discuss that. Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Elin. We have been instructed repeatedly that this article isn't just about "what the word ugg means in New Zealand and Australia." It's about what the word ugg means IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. Attempts to add "in Australia and New Zealand" to the hatnote have been repeatedly and vigorously reverted by editors from Australia and New Zealand. Since it is about what the word ugg means in the entire world, the mainstram view is that it's a brand name.The minority view is that it's a boot style. And weight needs to be apportioned in this article accordingly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No Phoenix and Winslow. The lead specifically states that the term is only generic in Australia and New Zealand so there is no need to repeat it in a hatnote, other than to promote Deckers. This article is about the style of boot not what the word "ugg" means. You have been pushing the it's about the brand name wheelbarrow for two years now and have lost numerous RFCs yet you continue to filibuster and keep bringing it up for new RFCs despite only getting support from socks and SPAs. You deliberately? get the article locked by edit warring for your version despite those edits still being the subject of an ongoing RFC and despite opposing editors refraining from editing at all apart from reverting you. You only came to this noticeboard because you were losing the latest RFC. Please stop your POV pushing and stop your constant misrepresentation of sources to support your cause. Two years of failing to gain consensus for your version should give you a clue and two years of your disruptive editing to promote Deckers is enough already. Wayne (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, if it's really an article about the boot style in Australia and New Zealand, the hatnote is the one place where that needs to be said the most. But as we've been told repeatedly, it's about the boot style IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. With the sole exception of Elinruby, who eems to support me only on the question of including specific sales figures, each and every one of the previously uninvolved editors on this paged in the RFC has supported me completely. The last two times the article was protected, the final edit before the protection was yours, and both were reverts — so your accusal that I am edit warring is a little amusing. Look past the army of Australians and New Zealanders who have migrated here from Talk:Ugg boots, and who dominated the RFCs there, and take a look at the previously uninvolved editors. I count five of them, and four of them support me 100%. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again your post is manipulative. You said and have always maintained: "It's about what the word ugg means IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" not "the boot style IN THE ENTIRE WORLD" as you now claim which is a major difference. I find your denial of edit warring amusing. I may have made the last revert but it was reverting you repeatedly adding material against consensus that was still going through a RFC which is a violation of the WP policies you frequently claim to be the champion of. And why is an "army of Australians and New Zealanders" migrating here? because you tried to not only exclude those editors from participation but didn't have the good faith to leave a notification on the article talk page that the issue had been taken to a noticeboard. As for your claim that "four of [the five uninvolved editors] support [you] 100%," I just re-read the entire discussion and we have one editor partially supporting you, one new WP editor who seems not to understand what the issue is and three largely opposing your edits. Add the "army of Australians and New Zealanders" and the current consensus is nine rejecting your edits/one supporting your edits and one who supports some of your edits. By including your own vote that makes it 9/3 against you. The only reason you get any support at all is because uninvolved editors are not aware of how far you want to push the article into being a puff piece promoting Deckers. Wayne (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That is what articles do. They discuss their topic. Not other topics.
 * Other topics may get a mention if they are relevant, and perhaps a link. I mean. If I write an article on, shall we say, the Green Party in the United States would you expect me to devote a majority of the article to the platform of the Republican party? And the Democrats, let's not forget the Democrats, they outweigh the Green Party too... but wait! Which is more mainstream?? And what if we give the Republicans 55% and the Democrats 45% because that is where the polls are, but something changes that ratio? Or do you think we should use Congressional seats? Stock market results? What is "mainstream"? In American politics doesn't it usually mean "people who agree with me"?
 * I proposed a solution and you don't like it. I am very sorry, but I do not have another one. Nor do I really care whether you go on to negotiate a peace with the other people on that page, frankly. I am dealing with a different piece of silliness over in my own corner and have absolutely no feelings about ugg boot traditions, standards or litigation. At all.
 * You are the one who wanted uninvolved editors, remember. It seems to me that my proposal gives you plenty of places to edit up a storm and portray the matter as you see it, but you insist inserting your views into a page about a related but different topic. Even supposing you can come up with some way to decide who is mainstream that isn't ridiculous on the face of it, doesn't doing this your way result in multiple pages that say pretty much the same thing?? I must be misunderstanding your position. This is not an invitation to explain it further. I have invested all the time I am willing to invest on this topic and will now take it off my watchlist.
 * I did mean to mention earlier that if there is already a percentage growth number on the ugg is a type of boot page (as there apparently is, although I am not sure why) then I see no harm in adding the numbers giving the range.
 * I'll also mention that the other people here seem to be at least willing to listen to one another and you, hmm, not sure. No doubt you think I am wrong, but you don't need to explain that to me either. Ta Ta. Elinruby (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "Concerns about quality" section. The original paragraph was brief, merely mentioning that uggs were generally made in China due to cost and that Chinese made uggs were found to be superior to Deckers and Australian made. This never had consensus and several editors wanted it removed due to the unreliability of the source. Phoenix and Winslow later expanded the paragraph, added brand names and gave it it's own section. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to specific points raised by Phoenix and Winslow here. Deckers wanted IP Australia to provide a fact sheet that omitted the use of the word generic that was used frequently in the case. This is posted on Deckers website. Editors would like to use the original case transcript as the reference rather than the fact sheet. This is strongly opposed by Phoenix and Winslow who disingeniously often notes "So far, no court has ruled on the matter (ie generic status)" when in fact, courts do not rule on generic status at all but base each case on current public perceptions.

This is not a question of NPOV but forum shopping after the loss of an RFC. Apart from SPAs and socks, who have been a significant problem, Phoenix and Winslow has been the only editor supporting these changes and the constant edit warring to promote Deckers over the last 12 months has led to the article being locked. Wayne (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to see some mention of anyone from Australia or New Zealand complaining about the reliability of the source before last month, when Liangshan Yi (editing as an anon IP editor) expanded the description of the quality study. (I'm not the one who expanded it.) Provide a link or a diff please, to the pre-October discussion about the unreliability of Channel 7 as a source. The protests about the reliability of the source suddenly started after the section was expanded. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't do diffs on *my* account. I repeat, I'm just some other poor slob who wound up here with a dispute. Somebody may look at the diffs, but it won't be me :) Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While mention that the boots are counterfeited is relevant, details of each individual counterfeit case belong in the brand name article and/or the Deckers article not this one.
 * Just so we are clear, I have zero authority on this page; I am here checking on my own issue, which probably seems as convoluted to you as this one does to me. But. If you really care about the opinion of someone who really knows very little about fashion much less brands of boots, I'll make an attempt to understand this. I suppose there is something to be said for fresh eyes (?) Let me ask this: this discussion concerns the page about the Australian use of the word for a type of boot? A), to use my labels above? If so then it does seem to me that court cases about counterfeits belong with b)copyrighting a word in use or c) the brand, probably the latter. It seems to me that an "other uses" redirect should be in use if it is not. Of course if there are not in fact three different pages, then I understand nothing and should probably refrain from commenting in utter ignorance. But assuming this is true can't the page about the australian/NZ usage have a (very) brief section titled "Ugg boots outside Australia/NZ" with wikilinks? And the other pages have corresponding links back? Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a good thought. I guess, though, that the problem is that there are three possible subjects. There is the particular brand, UGG Australia, which is owned by Deckers; the style of boots, of which Deckers is one of many manufacturers; and the cultural issues for the boots in Australia. At the moment, we have, as you identified, an article on Deckers, an article on UGG Australia, and an article on the boot style. The difficulty is that there is only one term which properly encompasses the style - "ugg boots" - which is the traditional term than was used prior to it being trademarked, and which is the only way of identifying the style. (There is a Sheepskin boots article now, but that encompasses a range of sheepskin footwear). Accordingly, the article on the style uses Ugg boots. Any discussion of Australian issues is included there at the moment, but even if we spun off that discussion, it would still seem reasonable to have an article on the style itself.
 * The problem we face is the push to have the Ugg boots article focus predominately on UGG Australia and issues around Deckers' defence of their trademark. Some coverage is important, as it would be seriously remiss for the article not to mention the best known brand. Where we are having difficulty is that a couple of editors, predominately Phoenix and Winslow, wish to focus more on the brand and less on the style in general, and seem to feel that the current tone of the article is more directed to the style and doesn't provide enough emphasis on Deckers. Others, myself included, wish to focus more on general issues, and less on those that face the particular brand. Hence the due weight concerns. The general consensus was to discuss UGG Australia in mostly general term while acknowledging their impact on the growth of the popularity of the brand and thus their historical role, and only cover court cases where they had a broad impact. This meant leaving specific counterfeiting cases of Deckers' shoes to the UGG Australia article unless they had a broader impact, and limiting the coverage of Deckers-specific information. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am involved in the ugg boots article. I respect that the purpose of this discussion is to obtain a NEUTRAL perspective on whether "ugg boots" is a style of boot or merely a brand of boot. As an editor of the page, I understand I'm not deemed neutral (much as Phoenix and Winslow is not neutral). Nevertheless, I'll still point out that ugg boots are definitely a style of boot which preceded the brand by many years, as demonstrated by references on the ugg boots page. To deny this is not propagating a minority view - it's just a fact, for which abundant evidence exists. I would contend that to view ugg boots as merely a brand constitutes a strong commercial bias that's well out of line with the aims and principles of Wikipeda. Donama (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * right, I think the AU/NZ usage deserves mention. If I understand this discussion, there are three different pages and the one we are talking about is the one about the style of boot, ie the AU/NZ usage. Please confirm that this is the case. If not my answers would be different (and might include a suggestion that you consider separate pages....) Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then have Ugg boot as a diambig and link it to the three articles. One re-titled “Ugg boot style in the antipodes.” With that article only discussing the boot in Australia and New Zeeland. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem being that the style doesn't only exist in Australia and New Zealand. The style of boots are available internationally from manufacturers based in multiple countries, including China, the UK and the US. The current article isn't about the style in Australia - it is about the style itself, and mentions the Australian origins, but isn't limited to that. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ok. Remember, I know nothing at all about any of this. That was shorthand. The "boot style" page maybe?
 * Yes, but if it was resticted to only the fact that then it would avoid this issue. At the end of the day we seem to have a number of articels that discuse (at length) the same material.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a problem, and it has been raised before. The difficulty is that the push has been to make every article that mentions ugg boots into something primarily about Deckers. I'm not sure how dropping the article about the style is going to be a fix to that. Ideally, I'd like to see the trademark dispute as either something on ugg boots or a separate article, with counterfeiting cases on UGG Australia, and UGG Australia having a brief summary and a link to that trademark dispute. The current repetition of content doesn't seem viable to me, either. Maybe I should be bold and see how it pans out. - Bilby (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion:
 * Page one, titled Ugg(boot style). I personally find this interesting and if it's something about which two whole countries can have cultural controversies then it's notable. Covers ugg style boots in whatever country, any cultural issues(?) etc. Uses a creation story for the boot that is acceptable to the boot style people. Must mention alternate version, briefly. Final word to the people who feel that boot style is the proper usage. P&W gets to write say three sentences/sixty words max about the brand *in Australia and New Zeland and anywhere else it's been a boot styel* which must be acceptable to the editors working here. Disambiguation at the top.
 * Page two, titled Ugg(copyright issues) This is the one I'd like to read one day. About problems caused by copyright of word in daily use. Litigation about that. Distinguish from Kleenex for example. Compare to anything comparable, like one-click shopping cart, maybe, or Blackboard (?) This is where the fights will be. If necessary go to paragraphs of two sentences ie "so and so says this (ref).On the other hand, so and so says this (ref)." Writing would probably be smoother if you can allocate out sections instead ;P I have no idea whether the word is or is not copyrighted in Australia, you'll have to duke that one out or get another opinion on that. If it it's an issue and there have been lawsuits the boot style page should mention it in as dispassionate a manner as possible.Disambiguation at the top.
 * Page three, Ugg Australia(company), covers history of the company, gets to give its own genealogy of the branded boot but must mention the existence of the boot style. This probably best done in a separate section written by boot style people with the same constraints as P&W has on the boot style page. P&W and/or other brand people must agree with it however reluctantly. Disambiguation at the top.


 * Page four(?) Decker page, or is this on Ugg Australia? Final word to Decker advocates, but must contain brief mentions of other versions of events, histories, lawsuits, etc. Must be acceptable to all parties.


 * Or, if I am full of it, just tell me to go away and I will. No, I do not think you need to have three pages that all cover all of that in some proportionate amount of coverage to population or land mass or anything else if that is what you have :) if you all have equally time and energy wouldn't you wind up with three identical pages? I'm from a small culture myself more or less (a couple really) and think (in my utter ignorance of all things Ugg) that if something is about culture and tradition then it is separate from whatever aspect of that culture got copyrighted (or not) and the people who copyrighted it (or not), and whether this did or did not happen, or should have. The *size* of the culture doesn't matter. Notability of the cultural icon is what matters. I think.


 * But maybe the above or some modification of it can be agreed upon by at least some of you from each of the various warring factions? You could have your own mosaic, your own easter accord, lol. (obscure cultural references, no worries..) And of course it won't be enforceable because really, any of you can write anything you want on any page at all. But that doesn't mean you should... Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:NPOVN
For the benefit of Johnuniq, Bilby, Daveosaurus and any other Australians and New Zealanders who choose to join them: the purpose of NPOVN is to get outside opinions on the POV question, not to carry the endless debate from Talk:Ugg boots to yet another forum. I'm seeking editors who are previously uninvolved. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get to tell them not to comment. At least, in the discussion on my post below, the other editor comments and comments and comments ;P Elinruby (talk)
 * I concour. Nor is it valid to debar anyone based upon nationality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * of course, that doesn't mean that you *should* comment or that you won't look like an ass if you do... not that I am saying that any of you fine people do. Just saying, remembering other arguments in other places. But no, I think the nationality thing was a bit silly and rather rude as well. I actually think I am somewhat less qualified to propound on the subject than what the bunch of you would probably get if everyone concerned got together and picked straws for someone to just decide this. But eh, in programming they have this thing they call fresh eyes. If any of the above helped, then great. I have participated mainly out of amused fascination with the concept that people have beliefs about boots and alternate timelines concerning them, and argue for a year over this. But then, green chile would no doubt baffle you, let alone arguments about signage on Chinese restaurants, giggle. Seriously, hope that helps a bit. Bye bye now. I am not going to look at the pages lest I get sucked into this, but I'll look one day and see what you did. Elinruby (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't tell them not to comment. I simply want to make it clear that I am seeking previously uninvolved editors for a fresh perspective. The fact that all AU/NZ editors seem to be going one way, and all other editors seem to be going the other way is significant. Let me draw an analogy. How would all of you feel if a large group of American editors who voted for George W. Bush started editing Iraq War and made it into a jingoistic, "Stars and Stripes Forever" article? The American Bush voters, by sheer virtue of their numbers, have consensus and throw their weight around, removing anything negative about the war (such as evidence of war crimes by American troops, and any mention of criticism or the anti-war movement) to other articles such as Criticism of the Iraq War and Opposition to the Iraq War. In effect, they make it appear in the Iraq War article as though the war proceeded without a hitch and without controversy, and that the pro-war position was the dominant one throughout the world. Would that be a good result for Wikipedia? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * well if the page is about "ugg is a traditional style of boot" and Australia and New Zealand is where this statement is true, isn't that kind of natural? If I were working on the page for Quebec I'd expect to find people who think it's a country, joke about tuques and skidoos and do their shopping in Plattsburg. And they would be annoyed if you insisted on inserting PePe LePew into the article, if that helps you see the way I am understanding this. As for your Iraq war analogy, ok. But what if there was a page about the theory that Iraq was the tipping point for the arab spring, another that dealt strictly with military events, a third that dealt with Guantanamo and a fourth that talked about the peace movement? Taken together, four perspectives that give more nuanced coverage than one article that's been edit warred to death, and nobody has to argue which perspective is more right or important. Heck, you could make it a portal, and I am sure somebody has.....Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Phoenix and Winslow got to post a wall of text about his views on the issue I think it's only fair that his opposition from that entry clear up their own positions so the neutral editors are privy to all the information in reaching conclusions of their own, surely? (I know you aren't saying it isn't - I am merely contributing my view at this juncture) -- To wish to prevent us from commenting here reeks of an attempt to gain "consensus" on his own terms where he has previously and repeatedly failed (not that that prevented him from editing, regardless).Mandurahmike (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no authority to tell anyone to do anything. But coming here with a dispute has been instructive in that it allows an insight into Other People's Problems, is what I was referring to. And mostly they are incomprehensible ;) Just saying that this sort of brawl mainly just leaves other people wide-eyed. The above discussion has been responded to point by point so many times that *I* can't really follow the flow, and I was in it. If there is no consensus still then a fresh entry might increase your chances of further intelligent comment, tho I am not sure whether the rules allow this. But it seems as though this is a place to voluntarily work toward consensus and you can't do that if someone just says no you are wrong. I am not sure what your next best step might be. The dispute resolution board maybe? Good luck. Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I am from the United States. I know the Ugg name as a Brand Name... and I have bought two pair based on that premise. If it's just a "style" of boot, then there is something "AMUCK!" It's being sold here as a brand name, currently. I think it's being sold as a brand all around the world, actually. No, it's not considered a generic term at all. Otherwise they would be called ugg-style boots (note the lower-case "u"). I do like reading about the history that a woman called them UGLY and that's how they got their name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristieSwitz88001 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Signed ChristieSwitz88001 until I get a formal "signature!" ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I really disagree with Bilby's assertion that term was previously used. There are a myriad of safeguards to prevent common words from being trademarked. Moreover, no one has provided any evidence that the word was in common use across Australia when the mark was registered in 1971. Quoting the government fact sheet, "Based on 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." Furthermore, both the actual decision of the register in 2006 and Fact Sheet clearly state that the mark registered in 1971 was removed for non-use. So objectively speaking, this is an issue of a mark that was legitimately registered and then was removed for failure to use that mark in a 5 year period.


 * Even the Macquarie dictionary recognized the "ugg boot" to be a proprietary term. Given these facts, there is no way to assert that the term has always been common.


 * On a broader level, I find it very telling that no one in Australia objected or raised concerns until 2003 when Deckers began to see great increases in profits. Overnight, the sheepskin boot was transformed from an embarrassment to an icon. The subsequent trademark dispute, in my opinion has become a large part of this story and it has been treated as such since the inception of the Wikipedia entry.


 * As for what to do going forward, we must confront the question of scope. Is this international or is this nation-specific? Even if the term was considered generic (which the facts do not even support), that perception certainly only exists within Australia and New Zealand. There is no dispute that the term is a registered trademark outside of these countries, and therefore by definition, it is not generic  Further, there have been countless cases outside of these two countries where challengers have formally asserted that the term was generic and in every case, the court has found that the term was not generic. I'm not sure how any reasonable mind could argue that the term is generic outside of these two countries given these facts.


 * The "ugg boots" article should be renamed "ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand." This is what the article is about, and the title should reflect that.--Factchk (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Factchk who obviously doesn't.
 * There are NO "myriad" safeguards to prevent common words from being trademarked. The process is as follows: IP Australia accepts the word of the applicant (ie:Deckers) that they own the trademark (sub-section 27 of the Trade Marks Act I995 - quote: "the person claims to be the owner of the trade mark") and accepts the mark (sub-section 44 of the Trade Marks Act I995). IP Australia then announces the application in their trade journal and if no one objects in the next three months the mark is officially registered. How many people would purchase the trade mark trade journal?


 * A generic term can be registered if the trade mark in it's entirety (term + logo) is designed so that the product can be distinguished from marks used for similar goods (sub-section 41 of the Trade Marks Act I995). Opposition to registration of a trademark can not be made on the grounds of generic use alone, the trademark in it's entirety must be considered (Part 5 Division 2 of the Trade Marks Act I995).


 * From the original court transcript (Page 10): "The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that the terms UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S) 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 which should innocently come to the minds of people making this particular style of sheepskin boot. The terms thus lack any inherent capacity to distinguish the particular goods. The Yellow Pages®, Internet, magazine and dictionary uses of these terms make it quite clear that these terms are generic...The [trademark] registration should not therefore be viewed as conferring rights in the generic term, or terms, from which it is derived. The uses of these generic terms by the opponent are not, therefore, uses of [Deckers] registered trade mark."


 * Rather than the false claim that "the Macquarie dictionary recognized the "ugg boot" to be a proprietary term" supports your view, the true case is that the Macquarie dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary both originally listed the definition of the term "ugg boot" as a generic term for the style. The Macquarie changed it's definition in 2003 to avoid litigation after Deckers threatened them with legal action and the Oxford changed theirs in 2006 after Deckers sent them a letter requesting they change the definition to recognise their trademark.


 * Rather than the false claim that "no one in Australia objected or raised concerns until 2003 when Deckers began to see great increases in profits," the true case is that no one objected until 2003 when Deckers sent letters from their lawyers telling Australian manufacturers to stop using the word ugg.

I find it rather strange that you keep making claims that have been discredited in previous discusions. Do you read Talk at all? Wayne (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually Wayne I do check my facts.
 * 1. As per IP Australia, both the fact sheet and the decision itself relate the following: “In this case the Registrar determined that the trade mark had not been used in Australia within the three year period ending 30 November 2003 and was therefore removed from the register as of 22 February 2006.” This is a removal for non-usage of the mark. Had Deckers slapped that particular mark on a pair of boots and sold them in Australia in 2002, it never would have been removed.


 * 2. The Macquarie dictionary in its revised edition of 1985(over ten years before Deckers acquired the mark) had a listing for “ugh boot” which read as follows: “ugh boot, n. a fleecy-lined boot with an untanned upper. Also ug boot, ugg boot. [Trademark]” You can view it here.--Factchk (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the Trademark Act was amended in 1996. Deckers trademark would not have been accepted for registration under the new amendment (sub-section 61 of the Trade Marks Act I995). Wayne (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Macquarie Dictionary makes no mention of trademarks whatsoever in the ugg boots "entry - ugg boot - noun a boot with an upper made from sheepskin with the fleece tanned into the skin, the fleece being on the inside of the boot and the leather on the outside. Also, ug boot, ugh boot. [origin uncertain; ? shortened form of ugly boot]". It is absolutely ridiculous that we have people here trying to assert that there is "no proof" the term was ever generic when there are countless references to the word in generic contexts which have been proven time and again from decades prior to Deckers. To claim otherwise is to become a mouthpiece for a corporate mythology that wants to claim their "ugg boots" are the original deal, imbuing them, by proxy, with concepts of being the greatest quality amid the "knock-offs". While this may be shrews business sense, it's not the version of reality we should seek to present on Wikipedia - The reader should be presented with all the facts and be able to piece together the exact situation with the provided information. Swallowing the generic term under a tsunami of corporate lore weakens the article. The only interests being served by trying to erase the existence of the very real generic usage of the term are those of Deckers and their bottom line. People who seek to be fully educated about the truth and history of ugg boots get the shaft. Fighting to weasel out of acknowledging the generic origins (and continued genericism) of the boot does little more than exacerbate the situation of ignorance which allowed a generic term to be trademarked in the first place.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike, the Macquarie Dictionary labeled "ugh boots" as a trademark in 1985, over a decade before Deckers had any interests in the brand. Its not a matter of "corporate lore," its a matter of public record.--Factchk (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Factchk, I hope you noted in that entry the word "ALSO" before the part that said "ugg boot trademark" - This is NOT the Macquarie Dictionary "labeling ugh boots as a trademark" it's acknowledging the existence of an "Ugg Boots (TM)" in ADDITION to the generic term. The key word here is ALSO. You'll also surely remember the court decision which stated that it should never have been made a trademark and the fact that Macquarie no longer even lists this as one of its alternate definitions. No one here is arguing for a second that someone trademarked "ugg/ugh/ug boots" in Australia at some stage before being removed due to being a generic term. I'd fully support the dictionary re-adding the "Ugg Boots [Trademark]" alternate definition since I seek to give readers information about ALL the definitions of ugg boots. I presume, since you're citing this entry which clearly recognises a generic term by only including the trademark as an alternate meaning, you'll be supporting the proposal to create a few "ALSO" articles here on Wikipedia so the other definitions aren't swamped by the Deckers one as they are now?Mandurahmike (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike, you’re only reading what you want to. If you look at that entry it does not say “Also Trademark,” it says “Also ug boot, ugg boot. [Trademark].” The “also” refers to the alternate spellings, same as they do in any dictionary. The acknowledgement of the trademark status of “ugh boot” in 1985 makes it clear to me that it was a recognizable brand in Australia at that time. Now how the usage changed over time, what others uses were available in the 80’s is certainly open. But nonetheless you cannot claim that “ugg is and always has been a generic term.” That’s arguing for the same exclusivity that you find repulsive from Deckers.


 * Furthermore, you again persist in this notion that the original 1971 mark was dismissed because it was generic. That requires me to once again refer you to the IP Australia fact sheet which states explicitly that the mark was removed because it had not been used in Australia within a particular 5 year period.


 * I think I see why you are confused about this manner. The delegate of IP Australia stated in 2006 that the evidence supported that similar terms were used descriptively. I don’t disagree with that. In Australia as of the present, similar terms are used descriptively to refer to a type of boot and not exclusively a brand.


 * At no point in that sentence, however, did the delegate state that the mark was invalid BECAUSE it was used descriptively. At no point whatsoever in the decision did the delegate state that the present use of the term made the mark invalid. This is backed up by the IP Australia Fact Sheet which stated explicitly that only the court has the right to determine if a mark is generic the court has not ruled as such.


 * Therefore, given these facts, it ought to be crystal clear that the mark was removed for non-use.--Factchk (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's you who are reading only what you want. The dictionary provides alternate examples of how the word MAY APPEAR - the trademarked example being one of them. The entry clearly refers to a generic style and no amount of skirting around the definition will change that. I also find it increasingly ridiculous the way you are claiming something that anyone who lived in Australia during the past 50 years would refute, as though you know better. If "ugg" was a "recognisable brand" in Australia EVER, don't you think Deckers would have been able to prove this and save the need for their court defeats in Australia? I mean, surely they just need to find a pair of, advertisement for, reference to this "recognisable brand" of which you speak? So, we've got several letters which were later removed from the dictionary backing the concept of trademark (amid other definitions and spellings) against hundreds, if not thousands of examples of the term being used generically in advertising, common parlance, and in the media for decades as well as the anecdotal evidence of anyone who grew up in Australia and owned a pair of ugg boots. I know when I had my first pair circa 1980, purchased from a stall at the Wanneroo Weekend Markets in Perth, I was only calling them their naturally and only name - "ugg boots" - The attempts here to make it sound as though the generic use is somehow similar to the way Americans use "Kleenex" and "Hoover" is nothing but an attempt to blot out the history of the boots in favour of history according to Deckers. This is why the Deckers point of view has been resoundingly defeated in every discussion on the main talk page for ugg boots and in various forum shopping forays such as this one. Again, Wikipedia is not here to present corporate truth, it's here to present the real truth. It is not here to pick up on technicalities and offer factoids to cling to a position by citing a lack of absolute, 100% proof, even where this clearly exists. If you can offer me just one example from 1985 or earlier of some "ugg TM" products pre-dating Deckers and from Australia I will cede your point. Surely if the "brand" was so "recognisable" it shouldn't be too difficult, right?Mandurahmike (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to settle this... I bought a pair of Ugg slippers. It has a trademark stamped across the instep so that everyone can see it. Genuine UGG with a trademark symbol. So "Ugg" is the brand name... and that's why I bought them. Their popularity got so vast because of the trademark... and the quality that goes with that name. NOT some "ugly" and "similar" footwear that is synthetic. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Much of what has been talked about is irrelevant. Stop looking at the needles on the pine on the tree that's in your face(s). Step back and look at the entire picture, and the reason "Ugg boots" was listed as an article. It was not an independent article based on some generic style of boot. It was to explain the great brand of footwear that originated in Australia. Sure, there are common off-shoots from it that are generic. But the focus of the article should be about the ORIGINAL BRAND and QUALITY that the world has come to know and love (or hate, depending on personal view)!''' K.I.S.S. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The ugg brand has it's own article. Editors wanting to promote a particular brand should disrupt edit the appropriate article. Wayne (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't Wikipedia wait for a legal request from Deckers before deciding that it is necessary to refactor an article in order to avoid damaging their trademark? I would welcome the removal of any incorrect information (does any text suggest Deckers does not own the trademark?), but see no reason to add a bunch of synthesis by listing legal cases to make some point, particularly when that point has very low encyclopedic value for the topic (it's an article on a style of boots—it's not an article on trademark or legal issues). The reason I keep watching this article is that I oppose the use of Wikipedia to unduly promote commercial interests—Deckers can look after themselves without using Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not making a point. That would violate WP:POINT. Our goal is, and your goal should be, compliance with WP:NPOV in this article. Forget about all other articles according to WP:STUFF. Concentrate on this article please. How does removal of the "Concerns about quality" section, removal of the counterfeiting cases, and heavy emphasis on "It's a generic term" in the lede and the first half of the article make this article comply with WP:WEIGHT? I look forward to your explanation. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The "concerns about quality" section is sourced from an Australian current affairs programme with about as much credibility as The National Enquirer. Its inclusion is cherry-picking of the highest order. The counterfeiting section has nothing to do with the subject matter and is only included to seemingly discredit people who call their boots ugg boots who aren't Deckers (since the counterfeiting issues are about copying Deckers designs, they do not belong there at all). Oh, and by "heavy emphasis on the generic term in the lead" I assume you mean "it being mentioned at all" - because that's basically what you've got there right now. A few words about the generic concept. Of course this article should be weighted toward the generic term because that -- is -- what -- the -- article -- is -- about! We already have articles about Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corp. Here we go arguing the same old thing again in yet another of Phoenix & Winslow's forum-shopping expeditions.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Forget about the articles about Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corp. because "other stuff exists" and WP:STUFF requires us to ignore it. "Other stuff" does not excuse an NPOV violation in this article. The counterfeiting cases include use of a generic defense. The consensus on the article Talk page is that the generic defense makes these cases relevant to this article, since this article is about what? The generic term. If there was a counterfeiting case in the United States where the generic defense was used successfully, and this expanded the use of the generic term by force of law, I am completely certain that you would want to include it. So these counterfeiting cases are relevant to illustrate the limitations of the generic term and its lawful use. If the quality section is cherry picking, and the source is unreliable, why did you (and all the other Australian editors) fail to object to them during the months they were in the article before I expanded them? And if it is "cherry-picking of the highest order," again, why did you fail to object for so many months, and where is the "basket of cherries," so that we can pick another "cherry" that is more to your liking? Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "It's a generic term" is the minority view. The ratio of 145:2 defines it as a minority view under WP:WEIGHT, even if we ignore population. If we study population, the ratio would be approximately 150:1. Arguments about other factors are a distraction, and possible a deliberate diversion. For nearly all the people of the world who have heard the word "ugg" and have an understanding of its meaning, "ugg" refers to a brand name. This is true not only in the United States, but also Europe, Canada, India, Indonesia and the Far East. The weight provided to each view in this article should be apportioned with these facts in mind. The amount of space, the wording of the lede, and the positions of the paragraphs supporting each view are all factors in determining weight. Currently "it's a generic term" dominates the lede and occupies the first half of the article. This is an enormous amount of weight. Editors from Australia and New Zealand, rather than correcting this problem, want to make it even worse by removing material that supports "it's a brand name." I encourage new people in this discussion to carefully consider the cultural bias of these editors, and apportion weight to their arguments accordingly. Seeking the nationality of editors may seem inappropriate, but for the limited purpose of the inquiry about cultural bias, it is appropriate. Liangshan Yi (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to rather pointless join this discussion a week after was started even though I've been a long term contributor to the article, I wasnt aware of this "discussion" taking place, by excluding those editors it created a bias, after reading all the crap above nothing has changed, all of the above arguements are in the talk page of the article. The problem is that while Deckers uses the "Australia" in its brand name it wishes to have no mention anywhere on the internet that the orgins of the style is from Australia. To this end its spent countless millions of dollars in legal actions, yet where the stye originate the term was ruled as generic by IP Australia, the ruling itself allows for parties to challenge the ruling to the Federal court within 30 days otherwise the ruling is ratified by the Federal court which is what happened. Somewhere in all of this meaningless discussion was a suggestion( appologies to the editor who suggested it for not crediting but I cant find the dif, found it thx Elinruby ) for Ugg boot (style), Ugg boot (trademark disputes) Ugg Australia Deckers Outdoor Corporation each given weight to its individual subject matter and each having a breif mention of the other with all linked from Ugg Boot as a disambiguation, thats not an unreasonable solution. Gnangarra 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that may be the best solution although from the previous misrepresentation of the trademark disputes by Deckers SPAs and meatpuppets I expect the edit warring would simply move to the Ugg boot (trademark disputes) article. On the plus side, it would be much easier to expose biased interpretation of sources in a dedicated article. Wayne (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Solution?
Several editors have suggested a solution. As this is the only arguement that has had support from both involved and non-involved editors it should be voted/commented on.

Suggestion:


 * 1) Ugg boots article be renamed Ugg boots (style)
 * 2) An Ugg boot (trademark disputes) article be created
 * 3) A disambiguaton page be created for Ugg/Ugg Boot/Ugg boots that contains links to Ugg boots (style), Ugg boot (trademark disputes), Ugg Australia and Deckers Outdoor Corporation


 * Support or keep existing - Two years of arguing with SPAs who have lost more than a dozen RFCs on the same dispute needs to end. Wayne (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, I would like to see links to these "more than a dozen" RFCs that were allegedly "lost." So far, I count only one that was properly filed. Yours was not, and that would make only two. Without being properly filed, how can uninvolved editors become aware of them and participate? Liangshan Yi (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Only one was a "proper" RFC. The Deckers editors rejected the others because none ran for 30 days which wasn't considered neccessary at the time because the consensus was so overwhelmingly against them. The RFC guideline is not fixed policy so the other discussions are still legitimate consensus building discussions, ignoring them is simply philibustering. I point out that many uninvolved editors have taken part in the page over the years. Wayne (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Then there was only one RFC, not "more than a dozen." Please stop lying, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a new user with a total of 19 edits, you may not be aware that Wikipedia is not like the rest of the Internet: suggesting that another editor is lying is regarded as a personal attack and is prohibited (see WP:NPA). Everyone is assumed to be mature, so occasional flare ups occur, but repeated attacks result in blocks. If you think an editor is mistaken, just say so. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above. There was only one RFC and around a dozen consensus building discussions which the pro-Deckers editors lost. Please read what people write. Wayne (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with this approach. I don't think it will solve anything by itself, so much as redistribute the problems, but that would make it easier to tackle them and allow each article to better focus on their core issue. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Highlighting Bilby's Support here so it's easier to see.Mandurahmike (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This solution goes in the wrong direction. This article should be merged with UGG Australia. False accusations of SPA and sockpuppet status have been repeated here constantly and do not contribute to a positive climate. Such accusations belong on the pages created for such purposes. Wayne knows where those pages are, but he doesn't know how to start an RFC properly; so that alleged RFC wasn't "lost." Make your allegations on the appropriate pages, where they will be declared "unlikely" again by Checkuser. Liangshan Yi (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support The "Make it all about Deckers" brigade hasn't had anything approaching a consensus in the two and a bit years I have been editing the article. while the other position has consistently produced strong simple majorities. It's time to end the forum shopping and solve the fact that these articles have been going nowhere for years. There's no question of undue weight if items which are, at their very heart, different concepts have their own entries with very limited mentions of the other entries ---where appropriate--- without it turning into the situation we have now where we have three articles about Deckers. If we to merge "ugg boots" into "Ugg Australia" as the opposing editor above suggests, we would be changing Wikipedia to conform to the corporate myth that Deckers products, and only Deckers products are ugg boots. WEIGHT is not a question when the style and the brand have their own articles -- all we need to do is make it clear that this article is about the STYLE and the other is about the BRAND. Cutting out a lot of the Deckers-related overkill on this article would go a long way to such disambiguation.Mandurahmike (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Liangshan Yi, you'll have to excuse us for some level of wariness over socking/meating because there have been cases of proven sockpuppetry and also some possible cases in the past and this entry does seem to attract a bizarre amount of brand new Wikipedians who immediately begin composing elaborate talk page posts supporting Deckers, citing wikipedia guidelines etc as though they were old hands who had long been involved in both the article in question and Wikipedia in general.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was previously known as 63.171.91.193 and other IP addresses. I have even had another account for a brief period in 2010, but lost the password. Previously, my "single purpose" for more than a year was editing the Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture article. As you can see, I have many more than 19 edits and I am an "old hand," not a "brand new Wikipedian." Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See here. Pro-Deckers editors that have been confirmed as sockpuppets: Linda1997, Bigdog2828, Barclaygla09, Illume1999 and Youngteacher. Likely SPAs on this article: Middlemarch2256, Cowboysforever, Factchk, 63.171.91.193 (Liangshan Yi) and Phoenix and Winslow. Wayne (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I have repeatedly seen there and I encourage you to read at the bottom, the Checkuser finding of "Unlikely." Please stop lying about that and other elements of this discussion, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The following is quoted from the finding of the Checkuser administrator, Tnxman: "The two named accounts [Liangshan Yi and Cowboysforever] plus P&W are all to be related to each other. Looking back (and correct me if I'm wrong), it was never established that P&W had any alternate accounts. There were some possible matches, but nothing concrete. There are accounts tagged as P&W, but I'm can't see why." I ask you again, Wayne. Please stop lying about this. Liangshan Yi (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I never accused you of being a sock. I said you were likely a SPA, only applies to the sock investigation. As I said above, please read what people write. Wayne (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See my remarks above. As you are aware, I previously edited as 63.171.91.193. I also edited using other IP addresses and I also had an account briefly, before I lost the password. If I am an SPA or meatpuppet, my "single purpose" was editing the article about Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture. Combining the work from IP addresses and my previous account, I have been working on that article for more than a year, while I have only worked on Ugg boots for a little more than a month. The proof is readily apparent in my contribution history for 63.171.91.193 and in my contribution history for my current account. Please withdraw your accusation, Wayne. Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Editing another article does not invalidate the claim. See here. Wayne (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Editing another article for a year, and then editing this article for one month (in which editing of the article was blocked for almost the entire period), invalidates the claim with respect to this article. Liangshan Yi (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Editing an article on two days five months apart is hardly editing another article for a year. 63.171.91.193 made only 3 edits prior to June 2011 when it made 17 edits to the Prefecture article in a single day. The account was then dormant until October 4 when it became a SPA on this article. The Liangshan Yi account then took over on November 6 as a SPA on this article. Wayne (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose “Ugg (Registered trademark)” footwear should be the primary article with headings of:


 * I)Genuine Ugg (Registered trademark) footwear
 * A) History
 * 1) How Ugg started
 * 2) Trademark disputes - with appropriate links to other Trademarks
 * II) Generic ugg-STYLE boots


 * I really don't care for the idea of titling the article "Ugg boots" because Ugg brand could easily come out with other Ugg Products. Currently Ugg has not only boots, but slippers.  So that could be discussed under "Genuine Ugg Footwear."


 * The "Generic ugg-style boots" (or whatever) would best be discussed, with appropriate links, within a separate heading.


 * ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deckers can label/market anything they like under their brand "UGG Australia" that doesnt make them ugg boots, nor is it relevant to any article about ugg boots. NO matter how much emphasis is put on deckers in the article it still doesnt change the basic fact that Ugg boots originated in Australia and were being prodcued well before the trademark was registered in the US, it was another 15-20 years before Deckers even got involved. It also doesnt change the fact that ugg boots are a generic term in Australia. Gnangarra 08:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion seems to be a violation of WP:SOAP. BTW, Deckers can bring out other products under the Ugg brand but they would be "Ugg brand slippers" not "uggs". Uggs already are slippers. Wayne (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, but this really sounds to me like making content on skunks a section of the article on Pepe Le Pew. Elinruby (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The world doesn't revolve around Ugg Australia. The 'Ugg Australia' article does though. So your suggestions are more appropriate to that article. This article is about ugg boots in the generic sense. Donama (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support since I have noticed the vote, I'll cast one in favor of my own proposal, separate articles with disambiguation, specific topics and headers either as above or as agreed upon. If there's a consensus for separating the topics, the next but separate question would be how. If you ask me. I am bowing out again to deal with a different set of issues. Thanks for listening. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Pepe Le Pew example is exactly what merging "ugg boots" into "Ugg Australia" would be like. The article the SPA above you is suggesting, also, already exists - it's called "Ugg Australia". Again, this move would be just another attempt to make the history of ugg boots all about Deckers Outdoor Corp. "generic 'Ugg stle'" would be a misleading term because this strongly implies that the boots are "in the manner of Ugg Australia styles" when they are not. Deckers do not own any trademark regarding the generic style and I think that's one of the major things getting lost in their vigorous attempts to quash any use of the word "ugg". All they own in the countries where we have established they own the trademark is the right to describe their products by the name. If we take away a Wikipedia article for ugg boots as a generic concept - ie, the name by which they have been referred to since the year dot - they no longer have a signifier with which to be described. It would be like if Nathan's Famous one day was able to trademark the term "hot dog" and from that moment on everyone else had to refer to their product as "cylindrical manufactured meat product" or "Hot dog style sausage product".Mandurahmike (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A better analogy was brought up in Parliament. MP Robert Baldwin said the controversy was the same as if an Australian company had registered the trademark "cowboy boot". Wayne (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Abstain since I think the current arrangement is already best. Corporate horns simply need to be pulled in and sock/meat puppets for corporate interestes need to stop being spawned. If a change to the structure of articles must occur I would support this. Donama (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with that, too - this would be my preferred result, given that we basically have the situation suggested here already with the "Ugg Australia" "Deckers outdoor corp" and "ugg boots" article. If only the corporate interests of the first two would cease to dictate the reality presented in the third.Mandurahmike (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd find the trademark article an interesting read, since according to what I see here the process may have been other than the usual brand name becoming a generic term. If a generic term can become a brand, then man has bitten dog, so to speak, regardless of the legalities. If that page does not exist yet, it would be a fair amount of work though, which I have no intention of doing myself. But there seems to be almost enough material in this discussion alone. Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Donama that the curent articles should be all thats necessary for the product, but that isnt possible because no matter how editors act in good faith, all concessions to content have been by the "Australian editors" and support for alternatives to aleviate the level of disruption have also came from "Australian editors". Here we have another solution that was originally proposed by an independent editor who responded at P&W request which specifically tried to exclude the "Australian editors" from the discussion who have all supported yet another compromise solution, while the collection of associated accounts meat/socks/cabals what every you want to describe them clearly arent interested in resolving the matter who will continue to disrupt until they can rewrite history of Ugg boots so that its in accordance with Deckers POV. I support this solution its time to stop the disruption. Gnangarra 08:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If I thought there was any hope that Elinruby's compromise solution would put a halt to the incessant edit warring from the Deckers fringe, I would support it, but unfortunately previous failed attempts have shown that this will not be the case. Therefore I must reluctantly abstain . This is no reflection on the quality of Elinruby's suggestion, and it should be noted that Elinruby, a completely fresh and uninvolved set of eyes, devised a solution that is very close to the structure of the articles as they stand; the main difference being that Elinruby also includes a disambiguation page instead of hatnotes, as at present. (I prefer the hatnotes technique as it involves less unnecessary complexity).
 * A few very short comments after having skimmed the rest of the debate: Of the brand new editors, whether Liangshan Yi is a sock- or meat-puppet is irrelevant as s/he has a serious conflict of interest here: (You should not be participating in an attempt to bolster your cousin's business. Also please note that accusations of lying such as these  are likely to be construed as personal attacks). ChristieSwitz is an obvious P&W meat-puppet (the the last four months, all but three of P&W's contributions have been attempts at furthering his/her edit war; two of those three are a fulsome welcome to an apparently brand new editor, shown here: .) Factchk is incorrect when s/he claims "no one has provided any evidence that the word was in common use across Australia when the mark was registered in 1971"; a few minutes' looking in the local library a few months ago was all I needed to find just such evidence in "The Way We Wore", a book about popular fashion in New Zealand throughout the ages, published by a highly reputed publisher (Penguin Books). The ultra-low quality sources cited by P&W to back up the "145 countries" myth pale in comparison. The suggestion by Slatersteven (who was canvassed here:  that the article Ugg boots be moved to a complicated geographically based phrase would come across as amounting to censorship-through-obfuscation. P&W does not appear to realise that Australia and New Zealand are two separate, sovereign nations which are separated by over a thousand miles of open sea. (In comparison, the United States and Mexico are separated by nothing more than a river. Should I assume, based on proximity, that P&W may as well be Mexican and spends his/her time swilling tequila and doing to cactuses whatever it is that Mexicans do to cactuses?)
 * In short, this entire waste of time has been fomented by an editor who, having failed to gain anything even approaching consensus when trying to convert the Ugg boots article into an advertising piece, has edit warred to the point that the article is now locked and is forum shopping in an attempt to get his/her way. As this attempt at forum shopping has obviously failed I would suggest that an uninvolved administrator collapse the whole mess and let people get back to the business of finding neutrality. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI. Liangshan Yi is the editor previously known as — 63.171.91.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Wayne (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made dozens of other edits, including most of the recent edits to the article about Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture dating back for more than a year. I only started editing this article a month ago. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it is only fair to observe that WLRoss, Bilby, Gnangarra, Mandurahmike and Donama are from Australia and Daveosaurus is from New Zealand, and therefore all these editors may be influenced by cultural bias. They may be "interpreting and judging phenomena by standards inherent to one's own culture. ... Cultural bias occurs when people of a culture make assumptions about conventions, including conventions of language, notation, proof and evidence. They are then accused of mistaking these assumptions for laws of logic or nature. Numerous such biases exist[.]" Neutral observers should take this fact into consideration when determining consensus, and assign weight to their comments accordingly. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not "from Australia". I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA and although I was born in Australia I have lived in the United States for the best part of the last decade. US culture is as much my own as Australian culture and I'm in a better position than most to "interpret and judge phenomena by standards", other than my own, than many others.Mandurahmike (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How long did you live in Australia before moving to the United States? My understanding is that for your entire life before moving to the United States, you lived in Australia. If this is the case, then you are principally Australian in your outlook and in any cultural biases you may have. In my case, I spent the first 18 years of my life in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture in China. Then I spent five years studying at a university in Europe. Then I moved to the United States, and I have even applied for citizenship using the I-140 Immigrant Petition. But I consider myself Chinese, and my cultural biases are Chinese. Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. Applying for residency is not the same as applying for citizenship. Not that it matters. I disagree with the underlying assumption that editor's opinions should be discounted based on either nationality or ethnicity. Not all truths are universal. How would you feel if I went to a page on your hometown and put in a lot of edits like "and they eat lots of chop suey and egg rolls there"? Chinese food in the United States is not the same as the food most people eat in China, right? And yet, to use the argument made above, that is only one country out of however many, so therefore... the *real* Chinese food is what is served in restaurants elsewhere. See my point? Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no conflict of interest. My cousin works in a factory owned by a Vietnamese corporation, that produces boots for Deckers under a contract. My cousin has no financial interest in the company, so I am not "bolster[ing] [my] cousin's business." He is just an entry level employee and I have never been within 500 km of the factory, or been in any contact with management or any other employee besides my cousin. The person more likely to have a conflict of interest is Gnangarra, who has admitted entering the Uggs-N-Rugs factory in Australia, visiting with the MacDougall family (owners of the factory), and creating the photographs that appear in the Ugg boots article in that factory. Gnangarra was also a tour bus operator for many years, touring ugg boot factories in Australia.  This is a much more likely conflict of interest, but WLRoss makes no mention of it. WLRoss is in the habit of making false accusations and exaggerations. His remarks should be completely disregarded. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Liangshan Yi has no need to make mention of my activities, I have no conflit of interest, I have been open and honest in all my work I have declared when I have been in contact with anyone associated with any subject I work on not just ugg boots as your diffs show. I am not related in any way to the owners of Uggs-N-Rugs, I am photographer I support the values of Wikipedia first and foremost. Yes I entered Uggs-N-Rugs to take photographs, no I havent visited with the MacDougall family my only contact has been when at the factory which they own. I'm happy to go to any other manufacturer to take photographs if they want I'm suprise that Deckers lawyers and Deckers management both of whom have edited the article never took that offer at the time. The photographs were taken to show the process of making ugg boots and I have never hidden that fact, nor the fact that Uggs-N-Rugs is within 30 minutes of where I live. Gnangarra 23:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Today is the start of a four-day holiday weekend in the United States, the longest holiday of the year. Any decision on consensus should wait until well after American editors have returned from their holiday. Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should consensus wait to be decide after a holiday in the USA isnt that just 1 of 200 odd countries, or 1 of 145 markets that Deckers claim to have a trademark in, this is an international project as you all claim dont expect to be treated any different. We can wait until the four day holiday it'll be fun to watch all the new accounts appear to support your POV, and in all fairness this discussion should only be closed by someone not in a country that Deckers hold its trademark, nor where its a generic term and where ugg boots arent manufactured so that the person deciding consensus has no conflict of interest does that sound reasonable. Gnangarra 23:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors are entitled to their own "Opinions" but not their own "Facts". Fact 1. Outside of Australia & New Zealand the style is not widely called "ugg boots" unless referring to the UGG brand. Fact 2. Every single legitimate company (and there are many and quite a few of these are owned by Australians), outside of Australia and New Zealand, refers to this style of boots as either sheepskin boots, classic sheepskin boots or Australian sheepskin boots. The below list is an example of just some of the Global Manufacturers of this style, none of which refer to this style as an Ugg boot: EMU, Koolaburra, Aussie Dogs, Warmbat, Australian Luxe Collective, Fit Flops, Green Lizard Australia, Love from Australia, Koalabi, Ausiie Boots Australia, Shepherd, Jumbuck, Overland, Shoo Republic, Seekin, Celtic, Morlands, Mou, Lamo, Sketchers, Chooka, Bearpaw, Old Friend, Staheekum, Minnetonka, Ricardo B.H., Lugz, Brodie, Flurries, Cloud Nine, KOS, Aukoala, Rocket Dog, Country Leather, Akala. Some of these larger brands are naturally getting their own following i.e. "Hey, she is wearing...UGG's, Emu's, Bearpaw's, Warmbat,s, Koolaburra's, Chooka's", etc Fact 3. The only countries using this term "Generically" or in "Common Language" are just Australia and New Zealand and as trademarks are national, yes, I word can be generic in one country and a valid trademark in another. Fact 4. Decker's have many legal rulings in many countries outside of Australia and New Zealand protecting their 145 valid and legitimate trademarks and have not lost a single complaint concerning the name therefore, the trademark for "UGG", is today, valid and IS A BRAND NAME. Fact 5. Many very large "Global brands" become "Mainstream" due to their massive market share and public recognition i.e. Ipod, Coke, Band-Aid, Bubble Wrap, etc, etc. This is very different from becoming "Generic" and "Public Domain" To fully understand this, see: List of protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms Fact 6. In the 1970s, an Australian trademarked "Ugh-boots" and another Australian trademarked "Original UGG Australia" in the USA and many other countries. These are the very first trademarks and Decker's legally purchased these trademarks and have built a billion dollar business from their trademarked brand. They are the worldwide market leaders in this category and in 99% of the world, the word Ugg means their (Decker's) products. The bottom line: Only in Australia and New Zealand is the word "Ugg" used generically or as common language. In the other 99% of the world, Ugg is synonymous with a brand. Therefore, a section needs to be finalized just for "Ugg boots in Australia and New Zealand" with references to the history in just those countries and their use in just those countries today as per P&Ws suggestion. Another page is necessary for the famous brand "UGG Australia". This is the fair and balanced way to handle this dispute based on facts and not national pride. I know that most of the Australian editors will always disagree but Wikepidia is about facts and is a global encyclopedia and they must understand the global facts about this subject. If you were to discount the 6 proud and very dedicated Aussies & Kiwis ( Wayne, Gnangarra, Donama, Mandurahmike, Daveosaurus, Bilby ) "opinions", you would see that is actually easy to get widespread consensus on these factual and accurate statements that will clarify what has unnecessarily become a confusing and "culturally bias" mess. --Cowboysforever (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Cowboysforever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose Ugg boots are only "just a style" in Australia and New Zealand. In most of the world, UGG is a trademarked "brand". This is an absolute fact.


 * Wow When an NPOV report generates so much text from so many editors for an article on a style of boots, it is a dead certainty that enormous COI issues are involved. Please just get Deckers to write to an official Wikipedia representative pointing out any legal problems with the current articles. When someone draws up a list showing each editor's ethnicity, please add a column showing the date the account was created and the percentage of edits made outside the area of Ugg boots. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Here's what's happening in the real world: Deckers won the trademark war, and therefore the war of public perception. Deckers marketing efforts, closely linking the word "ugg" with their brand, are everywhere. In every country except Australia and New Zealand, Australian manufacturers are forbidden by law from doing the same for their own products; and therefore the brand of sheepskin boots devouring the lion's share of the market is Deckers brand UGGS. They've sold US$1 billion worth of boots so far this year; no Australian-made brand is anywhere close to that figure, all are in fact extremely tiny compared to that figure, and most are small "cottage industry" operations run from a sheep ranch. This story is very much like the Operating system story with a reversed timeline: a fairly diverse world marketplace has become increasingly dominated by a single company. Therefore Deckers must realistically be a very large part of the story of Ugg boots, the boot style. Efforts to create an article that focuses on court cases Deckers lost, and ignores the many cases Deckers won, is like trying to write an article about Operating systems and pretending that Microsoft doesn't dominate the market, and never did. Deckers is the Microsoft of ugg boots (the style, not just the brand). There's a small and determined minority that hates Microsoft, just as there is a small and determined minority (disproportionately represented in this discussion) that hates Deckers; but Deckers, and Microsoft, are still the kings of their respective hills. Efforts to squeeze them out of the article, while leaving in the David-against-Goliath story of a single defeat at the hands of the cottage industries, defies this reality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * but this is not an article about Decker. Or Decker wins, or market share, ot Decker anything else. It's an article about the people on the sheep ranches, from what I gather, and you *really* don't want me to get started on the Microsoft angle, cause see, here's the thing -- that topic is discussed in the Microsoft article and any related articles that may exist about litigation (and I am sure there are many) but *not* in the articles about Linux, Debian, iOS or Android. Ai. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Even using the Operating systems article as a comparison, as P&W does above, it seems that Microsoft Windows get's coverage, but only a small amount - the detailed MS Windows-specific information is left to other pages. It is a fair comparison, in that sense, with ugg boots, which I see as covering ugg boots in general and providing Deckers with coverage as an important part of the history, but where Deckers-specific information should be left on Deckers-specific pages. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Then the Deckers-specific IP Australia action by Uggs-N-Rugs and Mortels should be left on Deckers-specific pages as well. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me, that there should be article(s) (2) of ugg-style boots Australia, and Ugg boots for the rest of the world. --- two totally separate articles whose information/origins really did come in the same place. It's clear that the Aussie doesn't speak from the entire world's perspective, so that person should have an Aussie article to fit the Aussie/NZ views. Separate them out. That would settle the debate. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea... let's use KLEENEX tissue as an example. I believe everywhere they are considered "KLEENEX," when actually, they are "tissues." If KLEENEX brand decided to make suspenders, we certainly wouldn't dream of calling them KLEENEX... Now, how would you handle writing the article with that example? ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The example has been raised before, but doesn't really hold. There are two main differences. The first is that Kleenex was a brand name before it entered common usage, whereas "ugg boot" was in common usage before it became a brand name. The second is that there is a viable alternative term for keenex – tissues – that uniquely identifies the product, while there is no viable alternative term that uniquely identifies the ugg boot style of footwear. - Bilby (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * POSSIBLE SUPPORT If the theoretical Ugg(style) is named Ugg (style in Australia and New Zealand) or Australian Sheepskin Boot(style) then that would be fine with me. My concern is with scope and proper nomenclature. The reality is that only Australia and New Zealand identify UGG as a style as opposed to a brand. That necessitates either limiting the terminology to the regions where it is appropriate or using the internationally recognizable descriptive term. It’s similar to how Wikipedia has constructed the Soft drink page. An item or form can colloquially be called by different names but it still posses only one technically correct name which to be used by Wikipedia. Sheepskin boots are called "uggs" in Australia but their technical and correct name is still Australian Sheepskin Boot.--Factchk (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugg boots technical, correct and traditional name is ugg boots, UGG is a brand. Australian Sheepskin boots is a name forced upon the traditional owners of the boot by the commercial interests of Deckers outside of Australia, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia commercial interests are secondary to traditional origins. Gnangarra 22:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The parenthetical (style) appended to "Ugg boots" trivializes the early non-trademark usage. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another solution?
I would like to have two volunteers from among the editors from Australia and New Zealand to participate in mediation. I would recommend Bilby and Donama, since they have best demonstrated an ability to remain civil during a heated discussion. May I have two volunteers please? Liangshan Yi (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool mediate with just two editors, that means I'm not bound be any deal you make with them. Mediation is open to all editors not just those you selectGnangarra 23:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh hang on a minute thats what you wanted, oops I mean P&W when you started this discussion you didnt want to engage with Australians now your going to go play somewhere else. Gnangarra 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that only two editors from each "side" in a dispute are allowed to participate. Since you are an administrator, I would hope that you would respect the results of mediation, no matter who from your "side" participates. Liangshan Yi (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All involved editors may participate. The "two editors" refers to the minimum number required. I doubt mediation will be of help as none of the pro-Deckers editors have respected any previous consensus nor expressed any interest in resolving the dispute outside their own view that the article must focus on Deckers. Wayne (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just need two editors who are going to certify the dispute for mediation. Wayne, since you don't want to participate, I hope that you will accept the result. Liangshan Yi (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As consensus has rejected the pro-Deckers position again, mediation is little more than further forum shopping. Wayne (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, the puppetmaster has lost here again and seeks to move on another forum. I love the way it's the Australian editors who are painted as uncivil and yet none of us made repeated unilateral edits without any sort of consensus. I think we've all been remarkably patient given the ridiculous way this article has been filibustered by corporate interests for years now -- we're on this endless cycle -- P&W makes edits that he has no business making, edits are reverted, discussions begin - P&W finds himself massively in the minority - a bunch of "red" accounts show up saying exactly the same thing he is - check, try another forum, and repeat. We've all been through this so many times and, while I can't speak for the rest of the editors, I am getting very sick of it.Mandurahmike (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As a mediation attempt was rejected here with no counter-proposal, I do not see how this would be fruitful. Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Formal mediation needs the acceptance of all parties to be viable. It isn't "certified" in the same sense as an RfCU, but starts with the agreement of all involved editors. It may, as I recall, be managed by the selection of a representatives, but all involved parties have to support the request. I'm not sure that this requirement can be met. - Bilby (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears that acceptance of mediation must be unanimous, and no Australian editor is going to step forward to represent the group. So neither one of these two conditions will be met. Desperate efforts to delegitimize anyone who disagrees with Australian POV-pushing and cultural bias are falling on deaf ears at Checkuser, where all the accusations seem to be resulting in a verdict of . I count Bilby, Donama, Gnangarra, Mandurahmike, Daveosaurus and Wayne on one side; and Liangshan Yi, ChristieSwitz, Cowboysforever, Mongo, Factchk and myself on the other. Six against six. Where do we go from here? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My point in the above is that it isn't a process of selecting representatives, but having everyone agree to mediation first, then, if that's how they wish to run it, selecting people to have the discussion. There is no "certification" process. I'm willing to support formal mediation, and who is involved in discussion is something that should be determined once that process has started, not before. However, if everyone doesn't support it, it won't be able to go ahead anyway. - Bilby (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I support formal mediation, and so do Bilby and Liangshan Yi. It appears to be the only way to resolve this, and I hope for a constructive and collegial process. I'll check with a mediator about the requirements. We have plenty of time, since the most recent protection on the article will last well into February. The article is stable, and we won't be distracted by any edit warring. This is a good opportunity. Let's not waste it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly no ones speaks for me and I dont dont speak for anyone except me. I have no problem with a mediation process thats done in good faith but I have yet to see any indication that that will happen this discussion started by intentionally excluding people and ended with a "solution" to further exclude people, yet happily recognises an SPA. Gnangarra 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's also conveniently leaving out Jonuniq in his list of opposition while, as you say, including the brand new, yet strangely wordy and vigilant SPAs such as Cowboysforever and ChristieSwitz. This attempt at "mediation" is nothing but another form of shopping around for an answer that suits him and Deckers.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record the above is a comment not a vote against. I don't consider myself involved, so I abstain. If there is a hope of resolving this I do not want to stand in its way. I do however think it would be simpler to go the route suggested above and just have Decker's lawyers provide you with a list of Things They Don't Like. Before I wander off again I'll mention that P&W is doing a fine job of causing dislike for the brand. I for one will never knowingly buy a Decker item of clothing after watching him/her in action. Elinruby (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments—very trying business. Since we have passed NOTFORUM by now, I will mention that my sole interest in the issue follows from my dislike of the frequent attempts in various articles to exploit the work of excellent contributors in order to promote some external entity or POV—I spend most of my time reverting or refactoring promotional or misguided material that is added to lots of articles (unrelated to Ugg boots). I was astonished to see that P&W is effectively an SPA who, in recent months, has focused on promoting the interests of a company, so I am not aware of any editors who support the Deckers material who are widely experienced editors and not SPAs (those comments do not apply to MONGO, but I think their sole involvement in this issue was two brief and not very conclusive comments above). Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Effectively an SPA"? I have an extensive editing history from long before I started working on this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that my wording does not quite convey what I meant to say—sorry. Yes, P&W is not an SPA. However, in the past few months (from around May 2011), P&W's contributions have focused on the Ugg issue. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Phoenix and Winslow has accounts on the Spanish, German, Norwegian, Russian and Swedish Wikipedia that have made no edits outside of their respective Ugg Boot articles. Wayne (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that mediation is the best way to resolve this dispute. We have an equal (or nearly equal) number of people on both sides of the issue. I do not believe that the number of editors accepting mediation must be unanimous. However, if the number of editors accepting mediation makes a consensus, and the mediation produces a new version of the Ugg boots article, and the editors have agreed to accept the result of the mediation, wouldn't those who refuse to accept mediation be "outvoted"? Liangshan Yi (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're mistaken there. All involved editors have to agree to mediation before it can go forward. A Request for Mediation won't be accepted otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for some guidance from a member of the Mediation Committee and I'm hoping for some clarification on this, Bilby. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Asking for mediation on this proposal is extremely dishonest. The rejection of your original proposal had consensus and this alternative proposal was only offered in the hope you would accept it and thus refrain from edit warring on the article. The original consensus stands. It is about time you accepted that you have lost all your attempts to include promotional material in the article and move on. Wayne (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the member of the Mediation Committee who was asked about this dispute, and I am happy to clarify the situation. To answer the specific question, yes: requests for mediation must be consented to by all the disputants (with the exception of inactive or blocked editors, or disputants with only a passing or minor involvement). To provide some additional commentary, I would remark that the purpose of mediation is to assist the parties in formulating a mutually-acceptable solution that accords with site policy. There is no question about being "outvoted", because the solution will be agreeable to all—and therefore will require some form of compromise by every faction of the dispute. If the notion of compromise on the matter of content that is being disputed seems absurd to any of you, then I question both whether mediation is appropriate for you, and whether you need to find another hobby; we work by consensus on this project. Good luck in your discussions. (This comment is made in my personal capacity as one with mediation experience; I am not commenting on behalf of MedCom.) AGK  [&bull; ] 14:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks AGK and all. I personally don't think this situation is well suited to mediation, since there is already a well-established and well-discussed consensus in the article. There are different processes on Wikipedia more suited to dealing with the current situation. Donama (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion
We have several new editors on the article. And in anticipation of the perennial accusations from the culturally biased Australian army, I've looked up the following in WP:MTPPT: "Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." My policy-related point has been consistent, and it isn't being effectively refuted: WP:WEIGHT defines "It's a brand name" as the mainstream view, and "It's a boot style" or "It's a generic term" as a minority view. I'll add that Ugg boots — while not created with this intention — has evolved over the past two years into a POV fork of UGG Australia. "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion ... in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the UGG Australia article was created first, it is in actuality a legitimate fork of the Ugg boots article per WP:SPINOFF and both are perfectly acceptable to Wikipedia. Thus WP:WEIGHT is already adequately addressed in the Ugg boot article and no Wikipedia policies have been "violated". Your promotion-related points have been consistent but, unfortunately, you have failed to gain consensus on any point of policy you have made for the last two years. It is time to show good faith, accept the communities decision and let the article move on without further disruption. Wayne (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, it is not "perfectly acceptable" if there is sufficient space in the Ugg boots article to hold all of the material. Read WP:POVFORK: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. (emphasis added) As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. ... [A]pply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * {{WP:WEIGHT]] isnt measured by populations its measurd by what the sources say, the sources dont dispute that uggs originated in Australia nor do they dispute that in Australia uggs is a generic term, even some of the court documents refer to it as such. No one disputes that UGG Australia is a trademark held by Deckers nor that the trademark has been upheld in various court cases where a third party was to have intentionally misrepresented themsleves as being UGG Australia. Ugg boot isnt a WP:POVFORK its the originating article about the style that encompasses the history of the style, neither is UGG Australia which is about the product produced by Deckers. The problem is that ugg boot has been over run with material that is primarily related to Deckers and this material has been present in such away as to violate WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 10:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gnangarra, WP:WEIGHT is measured by the "prominence" of the viewpoint, not the number of Australian sources you and the other Australian editors can find: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (emphasis added) Since all reliable sources either agree that the term is trademarked in 100+ countries or fail to address that area of fact, "It's a brand name" is the majority view. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why does it have to be one or the other? One of the "new editors" of which you speak below is named Cowboysforever - I assume this refers to the Dallas Cowboys American Football team -- a brandname. Should entries on "Cowboy" and "Dallas, TX" be deleted or edited to "protect the football team's trademark rights"? Should any product with the word "Dallas" or "cowboy(s)" in the name be edited on Wikipedia to point out that these are brandnames and the only real use of these words today is to refer to the football team? Unfortunately for Deckers, generic ugg boots didn't simply cease to exist the moment Deckers registered them and they won a court case in the US. What should they be called now? "The boots formerly known as ugg boots but which now possess no signifier"? Should this entry be deleted and replaced with "nothing to see here - move along - this concept may not be detailed on Wikipedia any longer"? Wikipedia is not about conforming to what people THINK. In my experience there is massive worldwide ignorance about every country and culture of which the person in question is not a part - Wikipedia is not about conforming to ignorance, it is about allowing people to overcome it by being given ALL THE INFO. Your desired outcomes for the article amount to nothing more than than reinforcement of the fallacy that Deckers wants to exploit. How about the word "Football" - should all mention of that term be edited to conform to the vast majority world view that Association Football (soccer) is football? SHould the Australian Rule Football, NFL, Rugby Union, Rugby League articles all be deleted or filled with reminders that most people think soccer is football? It's possible for terms to be more than one thing - Most people in the USA think a tortilla is a round, flat piece of bread from Mexico - but what about a Spanish tortilla which is a different entity entirely? What happens if one day someone in Outer Mongolia trademarks the name "Tortilla Mexico" across Asia and the sub continent, giving them the majority of the world population? Should the old entries be deleted or heavily edited to downplay the fact that such items were ever generic? Would it not be more sensible to have articles for both, perhaps with small mentions of the other meanings and how they relate to the overall history of the item, but keep them largely separate as the different concepts that they are? Is it OK that Deckers own the ugg term as a trademark in countries where the term was never used as a generic descriptor? That's not for us to say here, however it is equally not for us to decide whether this article should conform to Deckers' very obvious desired that no one in said countries ever cotton on to the fact that ugg boots were and are a generic product. What they want is to keep people thinking non-Deckers boots are "fake" and to do this they threaten dictionaries and businesses. I'm quite surprised, given their active efforts in these other arenas that they don't have a vigilant representative here on Wikipedia trying to push their interests to the letter. I guess they are just lucky they have unaffiliated folks such as yourself and a fleet of random new-to-Wikipedia-passers-by to uphold their wishes.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mike, that's a well thought out answer — thanks for that. In the first example, it would probably be impossible to trademark the single word "Dallas" or the single word "Cowboys," so your discussion of Dallas, Texas and Cowboy doesn't hold water. But any sports-related discussion on Wikipedia that contains the phrase "Dallas Cowboys" should be referring to the NFL franchise in Dallas. However, if someone markets a soft drink called "Dallas Cowboys Cola," we might write a Wikipedia article about it. And particularly if the beverage company is located in Texas, when the NFL franchise inevitably sends them a cease and desist letter, and if the beverage company digs in its heels and fights them in court, we would be more likely to have a notable subject for an article. If the beverage company wins — perhaps because it's not related to football, and they don't use the big blue Dallas Cowboys star as their logo, or any of the other Dallas Cowboys trade dress — it would have that "David beats Goliath" angle and it would be even more notable. I think at that point, a Wikipedia article about Dallas Cowboys Cola would be inevitable.


 * In your second example, nobody has trademarked the word "football." Soccer, rugby and American football are three different sports, and I think we have sufficient disambiguation. But in the case at hand, we have two meanings for the same term, and I think we can create one article that accommodates both. No, it doesn't "have to be one or the other." No, we don't need to eradicate the concept of "ugg boots" as a boot style from Wikipedia. No, we don't need to remove any of the information currently in the Ugg boots article about the history of the boot style. And no, we don't have to demote that material from its current position of prominence in the first half of the article. But WP:WEIGHT and [{WP:POVFORK]] instruct us that these two articles should be merged, that the brand must be given the weight it has earned in the reliable sources, and that all the counterfeiting cases in which the generic term defense was used should be included, rather than cherry-picking the cases Deckers lost.


 * In your third example — a trademark for "Tortilla Mexico" that starts in Mongolia and then gets registered in China — that may become an issue for the Chinese Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia, and in the countries where the vast majority of English-speaking people live (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India, etc.), "Ugg boots" is recognized as a brand name, not a boot style; other brands that are patterned in the ugg boots style are often called "fake UGGs," even though they'd be real uggs in Australia (if they're made out of sheepskin). Perhaps you aren't aware how fashion-conscious people think. They want that designer label. Brands are very important to them. Fakes are disgusting to them.


 * I want articles that obey Wikipedia policy. By dumping inconvenient material in the UGG Australia article and excluding it from the Ugg boots article, certain editors are using the latter as a POV fork. Whether this is intentional or not, it defeats the purpose of WP:NPOV. I hope that we can proceed in a collegial and cooperative manner, and obey these bedrock policies of the Wikipedia project. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As the alternative solutions have been rejected, the fall back position is the original proposal of Phoenix and Winslow. As it is clear that consensus has rejected the changes and disputed material in that proposal I think this discussion can and should be wound up. Wayne (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne, please stop pretending that you have consensus. There are several new editors on this article and they oppose your alleged consensus. I failed to count Johnuniq in the last tally; he makes it 7/6, which cannot be a consensus either way. I realize you don't like these new editors, and you're mounting a desperate, relentless campaign to delegitimize them. But your avenues for delegitimization are on other pages and Daveosaurus, without any notice to me or anyone else, has been quietly exhausting those avenues. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever "UGG Australia" boots/footwear are advertised here in the United States, a registered trademark identifies them as a specific name brand. People buy them for that, and the "UGG" Australia logo is labelled right on the outside of the boot, where everybody can see it, with the "R" for registered trademark. If someone wants to discuss that in some areas of the world there are counterfeits, and "generic termed ugg footwear," that's perfectly okay with me. But I believe the main article should be about the "Ugg Australia" brand. Please see example of it here: http://www.uggaustralia.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-UGG-US-Site/default/Default-Start?source=msn_ppc&s_kwcid=TC-13830-6314506784-e-835586436 and here: www.uggaustralia.com and here: http://www.uggaustralia.com/on/demandware.store/Sites-UGG-US-Site/default/Search-Show?q=Classic%20Tall and examples like this: 80%OFF UGG®Boots Hot sale and this: UGG® Official Site

I could keep going with examples of the "UGG [Registered Trademark] Australia" brand that prevails. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't in dispute, and never was. UGG Australia is a registered trademark. Ugg boot, however, is also a commonly used term to describe a style of boots made by multiple manufacturers around the world, that predates the existence of the trademark. Hence the existence of two articles - one on the brand, and one on the style. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently the phrase "ugg boot" is only used in Australia and New Zealand to describe a boot style. In the rest of the world, it describes a brand. There is no reason why we can't deal with both in one article, and WP:POVFORK militates strongly against having two articles in these circumstances, where a group of editors with a cultural bias dumps inconvenient material into one article to push their minority POV in the other. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You see to be confusing the term with the thing that it describes. The article is not about the term - it is about a style of footwear with a history that is often quite independent of Deckers, who are a late player in spite of being possibly the biggest, and which is manufactured by a great many companies, of which Deckers is but one. We can't put all of that in an article about a single manufacturer's product. The term we use to refer to the product is also independent to Deckers - it is simply the proper term for the product in the country of origin, and is the only term which uniquly identifies it. But you know all this - the discussion here is not going to progress any more than any of the others have. - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Deckers, who are a late player in spite of being possibly the biggest ..." Deckers is the biggest by far; there's no "possibly" about it. They sold US$1 billion worth of ugg boots this year before the Christmas season even started. I mentioned Microsoft with a reversed timeline because Deckers is in a position analogous to the position held by Microsoft in 1995: many times as large as all competing manufacturers combined. The "great many companies" competing with Deckers are like ants trying to avoid being stepped on by an elephant.


 * "We can't put all of that in an article about a single manufacturer's product." Yes we can, if the article is about both the boot style AND a single manufacturer's product, since the two subject areas share precisely the same name. WP:POVFORK is very clear on this point. Since all the material will fit in one article with plenty of room to spare (see WP:LENGTH for the guideline, and don't forget that a lot of material in Ugg boots is duplicated in UGG Australia), WP:POVFORK requires that it must be in one article. The limit is "6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." Ugg boots, excluding the headers, references and footnotes per the definition of "readable prose," is a little over 2,200 words. UGG Australia is a little over 1,600. Even if we don't eliminate any duplication, the combined article would be well under the limit.


 * "The term we use to refer to the product is also independent to Deckers ..." Not outside of Australia and New Zealand, where 99.5% of the population of the world resides. Please try to overcome your cultural bias, Bilby, and see the worldwide perspective. The first few paragraphs of the combined article can and should address the history of the boot style before Deckers arrived on the scene. But after that, it's a story of (A) trademark wars, with nearly all the battles won by Deckers, and (B) exponential growth of the Deckers brand. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The history of ugg boots is longer than Deckers involvement, its longer than Stedmans involvement, it has manufacturers that have been producing them for over 70 years. Some manufacturers have come and gone other have persisted despite the efforts of Deckers. The term and the style has social, historical connetations that have no reflection on Deckers product and would be inappropriate to be included in an article about Deckers prouct. Deckers product is single part of the story but with sufficient significance that it should have overage as a section of the style article, other issue like counterfiets are a deckers issue where it holds trademarks not a style issue. Nobody disputes they ugg style boots what is in dispute is the use of brands, designs etc that sepficily tailored to reflect/impersonate the deckers product as such this coverage is warranted in the Deckers product article. Again population isnt a measure of weight if it was every association football/soccer article be named just football, weight is measured by reliable sources by far the greatest volume of information on uggs boot style is generated out of Australia because thats were its of greatest interest, thats were its most significant, thats were it has cultural ties and thats where they originated. Gnangarra 10:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to the biggest, Deckers appears to be such, but I wouldn't be surprised one day to discover that a Chinese manufacturer of synthetic ugg boots sells more than all the other companies combined. We don't know the figures, but it isn't unusual for a company handling mass production of low-end goods to beat the high end manufacturers in sales or profits. As to the rest: these are two different topics. The style of boots, which includes Deckers brand, and the individual brand. I can't see where in policy we need to merge those two together unless it is because the brand can't support its own article. This has nothing to do with POVFORK or article size, but whether or not two separate subjects are viable as independent articles.
 * We really need to consider dropping this from this forum. The odds of an independent editor being patient enough to wade through this discussion is vanishingly small. If we can't go to mediation because of lack of support, I guess we're stuck with trying other channels. - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree all of this has discussed and discussed and discussed, consensus has been reached multiple times its always been the same and each time its resulted with "new accounts", its more akin to the disputes around the Church of Scientology. Gnangarra 10:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus has repeatedly and unambiguously rejected Phoenix and Winslow's promotional proposals and interpretations of WP policy. We have to draw the line somewhere. It is now up to him to accept that he can not continue repeating the same arguements hoping to get a different result. Wayne (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change, and has changed. I will again remind you that we have several new editors. I think that as more people who are not swayed by an AU/NZ cultural bias become involved in this article, the tide will continue to turn against you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course consensus can change, but not overnight as you seem to believe. You have been pushing this for two years now and it is disruptive to bring it up again only a month after your last attempt to get consensus failed. Not to mention the edit warring to get your version in against consensus. How about taking a break and try again in six months, or even three months. Wayne (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't "overnight" either, Wayne. I think bringing in more editors who do not share your Australian cultural bias, and your previous history of failed disputes with me, is a very positive step for Wikipedia. The process of bring in more editors has been going on, through RFC and WP:NPOVN, for two months. At first it didn't seem successful because new editors arrive slowly, and they are intimidated by the massive wall of the United Australian WP:OWN Defense Force. So you said in October that "your last attempt to get consensus failed," etc. But I am convinced that if we had every Wikipedia editor participating in this matter, you would be overwhelmed. This is not the Australian Wikipedia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the Aussie/NZ folks "feel so strongly" about a generic term!!!   What in the world is their motive in that?  The rest of the world is hungry for the "UGG Australia" brand boot, and obviously sales are really doing well. Putting accurate history behind the popular brand would be a plus! So, don't separate the Aussie's point of view. I think it blends perfectly with the description of the so popular "UGG Australia" brand ... and would clearly complement the article. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting accurate history behind the popular brand would be a plus! the accurate story is that there is more to ugg boots than the brand, the brand is a significant element nobody denies that, its uggs Australian origins and the Australian culture that makes Australia such a necessity in Deckers UGG Australia brand, its just that for Deckers to accept that they are recognising that ugg is more than just a trademark, they recognising that ugg is a generic term. Gnangarra 17:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Only in Australia, mate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Likely, most of the world wouldn't have even heard about the UGLY boot, had it not been for the name brand. MORE significant HISTORY! The article shouldn't be "all about Deckers"... or whatever the company is that owns the Registered Trademark. The purpose of the article is to teach the background of: the terminology that people understand, not "the company," anyway! I think this issue is solved. Go with the nomenclature that the world recognizes and branch off from there with historical background, and the like. ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia is not about "what people think". You can't teach people by presenting them with the same inaccuracies.Mandurahmike (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Bit of History and a Modest Proposal
Let me be a voice for sanity and reason. I think it is a good time to step back, speak one at a time and use our reason to figure this out.

We can start be going back to the beginning. Perhaps it may help if we examine the history and context of this particular entry. This entry was created in July of 2004 as a stub. By December of that year it had already acquired information about the burgeoning trademark dispute between Deckers Outdoor Corporation and local Australian manufacturers. Here is the text that was inserted in full:

“Currently these boots are very fashionable, due to a push by an American company, Ugg Australia which is also trying to appropriate the word ugg boot as an exclusive trademark. This brand is made in China. So you people that bought a pair of boots that are not the branded "ugg boots", as long as they are made of sheepskin they are still real ugg boots, and if they are made in Australia or New Zealand then you can say how these are true Australian/New Zealand ugg boots instead of those expensive imitators.”

This is inserted nearly 2 years before Uggs-N-Rugs case against Deckers is settled in 2006. Reading this now, the text seems very argumentative and has questionable NPOV. Look at the presence of the second person inquisitive, “then you can say,” or “So you people that bought.” It’s the similar to oft repeated quips about UGG brand boots worn by sorority girls here in the States. It also referred to the UGG® brand boots as “expensive imitators.” Since the brand was founded by Australian, Brian Smith, was sold to an American company in the last 15 years and continues to make high quality sheepskin boots, I don’t think its NPOV to call them imitators.

So what does this have to do with the present article? Well very much. It indicates that from an early date, this page refused to recognize and legitimacy in Deckers’ brand or product and was used to spread a specific Australia-centric POV. There also has been indignation from Australian editors who feel as though somehow something has been stolen from them. It’s understandable why this would happen. An American company battling local manufacturers makes for a great story and the anti-corporate narrative is very appealing. This attitude caused some odd pieces to end up on the page. One example was the ridiculous “flying ugg boot,” which attempted to place generic use in World War I.

When I came to the page I felt the most egregious error present was the assertion that Deckers’ trademarks had been removed everywhere. As we’ve seen Deckers legitimately owns the exclusive right to UGG in 145 countries, constituting a stupendous majority of the world. Moreover, and this continues to be banded about, the other editors refused to recognize what the decision of IP Australia was and what it wasn’t. It was not a dismissal based on generic, it was non-usage of the mark. This correct view has never been given credence despite both the testimony of the registrar and IP Australia itself.

There was also the refusal to give any credence to the perspective of the rest of the world where UGG refers solely to a specific brand.

Now over time, I felt the article underwent some fine improvements. I felt that by the spring of this past year it was in a far better place than it had been in the past. It was recognized that because of the national boundaries of trademark laws, Deckers still owned the exclusive rights outside of Australia. Other relevant cases to the “ugg is generic” claim had been added and given appropriate detail. I thought that was a major improvement. The inaccuracies regarding the 2006 decision were still in place but at least it was recognized that there was an alternate but equally legitimate perspective.

I want to put forward three simple suggestions that I feel are factually accurate and would improve the clarity of the article and smooth these ruffled feathers:

1: Immediately and clearly state in the lede (or through the title) that these boots are commonly called uggs in Australia and New Zealand and everywhere else UGG is viewed as a brand or that it is exclusive to the UGG brand. There is plenty of evidence to state that ugg is common in Australia and plenty of evidence that it is viewed as a brand here in the US. We don’t have to have it one way or the other. At present no editor has presented any information that ugg is a common term outside of Australia and New Zealand.

2: If the discussion of trademark disputes is creating clutter on the page then the whole thing could be moved to its own page. In order to maintain the proper scope, where the trademark is discussed, all cases have to be included. That includes the Netherlands, Turkey and the United States. If the status of a trademark is to be discussed all available material must be included. Anything else is not NPOV because it isn’t granting equal importance to each nation.

3: In the discussion of the 2006 IP Australia decision it should be stated that delegate found that Deckers had not used the 1971 mark in Australia in a 5 year period and that this was the grounds for removing that mark from the register. The delegate did comment that ugg was used commonly in Australia. However, the delegate himself and IP Australia also stated explicitly that the cause for removal was non-use. IP Australia explicitly stated that they do not have the legal authority to declare a word generic and as of today no court has issued such a ruling. The practical effect of that decision in Australia is still the same.

Please consider each one individually. I am willing to listen to any other positive suggestions from any editor. I don’t really care about the Quality section, if it is there it’s nice but I don’t feel it is necessary. Let’s not make this personal or about national boundaries. There’s plenty of room for every perspective without denouncing someone as wrong or ignorant.--Factchk (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Factchk asked me to comment on the above proposal. It seems to assume that there will be one article; this seems to be unacceptable to many of the other editors. On that basis alone the proposal makes me uncomfortable. Also, I still have not looked at the articles nor at their discussion pages and do not want to do so. I have my own ever-increasing list of things I want to fix and do not want to get sucked into a battle that's been going on for more than two years over copyright decisions I have not researched and do not have the time at the moment to research. I said above that my proposal represented my best understanding of what would be fair. I am hewing to that not so much out of pride of authorship as lack of time. I invited alternate proposals. I am not sure whether this is one. I do continue to object to the way this is getting framed in terms of nationality. To my eye, if there is cultural bias in the story, it lies in a US company trademarking a word in common use in another country and then trying to enforce it in that country. The details of the court case on the subject I leave to the lawyers; I am sure there is at least one in the background of this discussion. I am interested in this discussion but have already contributed what I can to it. Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the suggestion has merit. As proposed, the trademark dispute material can be fully represented in a dedicated article called something like Ugg boots trademark dispute. Absolutely, the article should say right away that the term is differently applied in different places. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I too think moving the trademark disputes to a separate page might not be a bad idea. However, the argument is about the page on ugg, the style of boot, you see Binksternet, and one side seems to be saying that since this is only true in a few countries then WP:WEIGHT requires that most of the article be devoted to the brand. They say this even though the brand and the owner of the brand have their own separate pages; I just checked. The other side compares this argument to an Australian company trademarking the term "cowboy boots" and someone re-writing the cowboy boots page to remove mentions of the Old West. I am leaving out some detail here but I believe this is an essentially correct summary of the positions -- if not please correct me. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A few points, I guess. The first is that there's no use pointing to the 2004 version of any article on WP - at that stage Wikipedia was a very different place, and it comes as no surprise that an article from that period would be biased. The history, therefore, isn't particularly relevant, and the version you point to as a high was the result of a rewrite that was produced by all editors, including "the Australians". That said, I'm not sure how this proposal differs from Elinruby's: I presume this would mean three articles, Ugg boots, UGG Australia and Ugg boots trademark dispute, which is pretty much what Elinruby suggested and I supported. In regard to the trademark dispute discussion, I have no hassles with that being there or in a separate article, and covering all relevant court cases. Naturally, this will mean limiting the focus to trademark dispute cases, rather than including all counterfeiting court cases, but that's been the general consensus anyway. If it is a trademark dispute - defined as involving a claim that the trademark doesn't hold - then it fits in the article's scoop, and if not it is outside of the scope. And in regard to the third point, the article currently states: "IP Australia also ruled that the trademark "Ugh-boots" should be removed from the trademark register for non-use as Deckers had only been using the UGG logo, not the UGH marks", so your point there seems to be covered. The statement from the register that it is a common term in Australia is relevant, so we don't want to remove it - noting that I have no problem with highlighting the non-use decision more. - Bilby (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

1: - The lead already does this. I would have no problem with rewording though as long as promotional material is not added.

2: - This was already proposed and failed.

3: - The article already states this. IP Australia stating that they do not have the legal authority to declare a word generic is totally irrelevant as no court makes such rulings. Including this would only serve to imply that courts do rule or that the case had no merit. IP Australia did however state: "The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that...these terms [UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S)] are generic – they are the most immediate and natural ways in which to refer to a particular style of sheepskin boot." To limit the article to a single finding from the IP Australia case is POV. Wayne (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding suggestion #2, to have a new article discussing the trademark dispute, there seems to be a new consensus for it, so past consensus against it is... past. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Having a new article for the trademark dispute was proposed on November 23. The vote was 5 for, 6 opposed and 2 abstentions. The original proposal was 7/2 against, so this new article as a compromise was suggested in the hope of getting those 2 supporting editors onside. Neither agree with having a new article and without a solution that those two editors agree to the edit warring will continue. Wayne (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I was comfortable with the original proposal of moving the Trademark disputes to a separate page. I can see the reason why it might be looked on as impractical given the length of that section. In that post, I also raised my concern about naming and the lede as I felt that removing it left no mention of any alternative perspective. This is the result of the lede being altered in recent months from what I felt was acceptable and consensus to one that fails to put things in appropriate context. I think that Binksternet summarized that need fairly succinctly when he/she said that the article should say right away that the word has a different primary connotation in different places. I don’t think we have to promote one version or the other but state it as a fact. Namely that these boots are called uggs in Australia and elsewhere UGG refers to UGG Australia. While we have disagreed about the wording, I think there is consensus about the necessity of clarity as there are different ways of looking at this. I didn’t know that the article already included the non-usage. It could probably use some tidying but I’m glad there is consensus for keeping it up which is good enough for now. I expect there’s going to be a lot of discussion over the particular wording and implementation of the above suggestions but it seems for the moment that there is consensus in principle. We can rail at each other over who is neutral and who isn’t but we been at this for so long that I think we all know where we stand and that isn’t likely to change so we may as well make the best with what we’ve got.--Factchk (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we have the attention of Binksternet and Elinruby why dont we ask them to write an initial lede, then we can work with addressing the balance from an initial uninvolved POV and we can return to the Ugg boot talk page and close this discussion.Gnangarra 23:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Binksternet, but I would have to think about this. My questions would be a) would this involve one article? b) what is its topic? c) is there agreement on the facts of the article?
 * I'm pretty burned out on wiki-contentiousness, to the point where I am taking a break from an article that I consider really important. See previous comments -- you might be better off drawing straws than listening to me. I am wary of being set up -- not deliberately, but in effect -- for a bunch of argument about boots. Boots, people. I realize that there are cultural issues on the one hand and brand issues on the other, but neither is of burning import to me.
 * The thing about writing a summary is that it involves deciding which parts of an article are important :) Isn't that what y'all are unable to agree upon? I am not saying no, nor am I saying yes. But I am skeptical. Let's see if anyone else thinks this solves something, ok? Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I share Elinruby's skepticism. The article experts should be able to write this stuff better than I would be. And, yes, it's only about boots with fuzz on the inside. ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support this and any proposal that does not treat Australia as more important than any other country, and Deckers as a gang of thugs. That is and always has been the problem with this article, in a nutshell, starting with the first day it was created. There have been improvements over the years, and as Factchk pointed out, this spring we reached a point where these problems were almost eliminated. But from edit warring and Talk page remarks by various Australian editors, there is still a large group of editors who believe that Australia is more important than any other country, and Deckers is a gang of thugs. If we can't overcome that cultural bias, we will never resolve this dispute. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you care to cite one single instance in the existing article where Deckers are portrayed as a "gang of thugs?" The only place I can possibly see this coming out is in talk pages as a result of thuggish activities within the article on ugg boots. I think the best way to prevent any negative vibes toward Deckers would be if they kept to the Deckers articles and were limited here to a more appropriate mention of the companies role in the worldwide expansion of the larger concept of ugg boots as a style, without turning this into a third article all about Ugg Australia.Mandurahmike (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Swiftian Counter-Proposal
I have looked at the Uggs boot page. Seemed only fair after getting sucked into the weed-whacking of adjectives on an off-shoot of the Berlin Conference article someone posted about below.

It's my formal, considered, opinion, if anyone cares, that nobody can currently write a lede that properly summarizes the uggs boots page, since it most of it is currently made up of material about copyright cases in Turkey and the Netherlands and trademarks in Japan and the opinions of Pamela Anderson for crying out loud. There's no point in further voting on the above proposal, because I will not do it. If elected I will not serve, ok? That article, the UGG Australia and the Deckers articles all need a complete re-write so that they deal with their own topics, and I refuse to touch the uggs article without a mandate to do exactly that.

This is not an offer, as the time required would be considerable and I am not naïve enough to believe that I would not be plagued with reverts by brand new editors who claim to only want justice. The discussion page makes me want to take a shower. An editor who claims his only association with UGG Australia is that he bought his wife a pair of their boots responds to the word "generic" with mentions of jail time for contempt of court? Get out of here. That page and the enormously elaborate posts here are an insult to the intelligence of Wikipedia users. Sure, a lot of non-lawyers peruse the WIPO page on well-known marks for light reading. I believe that, and you should too. I mean, just the other day the custodian was telling me how strongly he felt about something he saw there. I may need to hand out barnstars to every editor who responded to that one with less than the contempt that it deserved. AGF has a lot to answer for sometimes.

So here's a better idea. Leave the current page locked but rename it trademark disputes or whatever name has consensus, and no, the meatpuppets don't count. Start a fresh uggs page. Ban P&W from editing it. The hallucinatory claims and belligerence on the current discussion page alone probably justify this, but let's throw in repeated remarks about ethnicity as a tie-breaker. In fact, P&W should have at least a temporary loss of noticeboard privileges, since he uses them to threaten people. Put a one-revert rule in place on the uggs page, or whatever other measure might better protect it from ip addresses fully versed in wp:whateversuitsmypurpose.

I'm completely serious.

Then write a page about the style of boot. This should have gone to COI. Now I really *am* done here. The torrential posts here are pure wp:icanthearyou. Close this mess. One side wasn't listening and apparently hasn't for a while. Wikipedia needs to find a better way of dealing with stuff like this.

Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At last...someone willing to tell it like it is. Kudos. Wayne (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fookin' A. Perfect. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh! You must be Australian! Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider that I've been outnumbered by six people with a cultural bias, who are owning the article, and have adopted as their new de facto spokesman a person with a long history of fringe theory advocacy and POV pushing, particularly evident where admins stubbed a lengthy article that was loaded with his misrepresentations. In light of these conditions, Elinruby, I've been remarkably civil. The meatpuppet accusations are completely bogus; I've been supported repeatedly by several veteran editors who had thousands of edits before looking at this article. At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers:


 * "... the items do have a WP:SYNTH look about them (particularly given the history of this article) where, whatever the author's intention, the text could be interpreted as cherry picking of isolated factoids in order to promote a view regarding who 'owns' this style of boot."


 * That's exactly what it was. At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed, and has previously remarked on the advocacy of fringe theories by the opposing de facto spokesman on other articles.


 * "Poorly sourced....that you can't see the misinformation is no surprise..you were trying to peddle fringe nonsense at 911 articles at one point as well."


 * User:Elinruby is clearly unaware of this half of the truth, because these six partisan editors haven't been directing his attention to this half of the truth. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly "repeatedly" or even significantly. They each supported you once only for the same minor edit that was of little consequence. This was over a year ago, it was removed as trivia not POV and none of the "Australian" editors objected. It was also NOT "on behalf of Australian manufacturers" but a quote by a politician made in Parliament that mentioned only one manufacterer, a non-profit organisation that only employs disabled workers. Mongo, an editor canvassed by you, actually supported the version of the article he "thought" you had proposed. He made a mistake, he didn't realise it was the version in place after your edits had been reverted that he was commenting on. If you remember, you reported me for my 911 editing and canvassed seven editors to give evidence against me. Despite several requests to provide evidence, between the seven of you, you could only post a single diff as evidence, the case was dropped and admins told you not to continue making false accusations. Stop bringing up other articles I have edited where I have never been found to have done any wrongdoing. This is a violation of WP:NPA. Wayne (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P&W Quote: I've been supported repeatedly by several veteran editors.
 * P&W Quote: At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers:
 * P&W Quote: At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed,
 * P&W Quote: you were trying to peddle fringe nonsense at 911 articles at one point as well.


 * So why were "six partisan users" able to so easily sway User:Elinruby and the other editor above who calls his response "perfect", yet yourself and the various SPAs were unable to do so? It wasn't us chasing after him to bring him back here to further comment in our side of the argument's forum shopping attempt. If the entry on "backfire" needs better explaining I suggest we just cut and paste this whole discussion in there. I find it particularly ironic, after your previous complaints about existing users moving to discredit various SPAs and obvious meatpuppets that you now move to discredit a neutral editor who clearly states that they have spent time reading the original article, the other two Deckers articles, and who shows clear evidence of a long examination of the talk section. Does that sound like someone who has been "directed to half of the truth"? The fact that you would make such an insulting statement against a very active editor who is clearly in this forum to help is another example of why you forum shop - not to improve the article - but to have it comform to the your wishes. Whether you are, as you claim (a claim which User:Elinruby noted), simply a casual consumer whose wife once purchased a Deckers product or not, it should stand as testimony to your STYLE and INTENT displayed in editing the article over the years that neutral, non-Australian editors read your comments and edits and think "Deckers Shill". Whether you are, or not, only you know for certain, but the neutral editors can only draw their conclusions from the systematic bias and very clear agenda in your work. So, either you're working for Deckers, or your work is so out of line with actual reality and so in line with corporate "reality" that it makes it appear that you are.Mandurahmike (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, your repeated attempts to discredit Australian editors as "culturally biased" reeks of an attempt to go down the same path which allowed for a generic term to be copyrighted (and enforced) through ignorance. Since arriving in the USA I have been complimented on my English, had people observe that I "must be amazed to see skyscrapers", been asked (by a middle school teacher) if Australia was "on the Euro Dollar" and had many people tell me they "love Australian food and can I show them how to make a Bloomon' Onion?". Cultural KNOWLEDGE, not bias, is at work here. It's for the same reason you see retired sportsmen employed as analysts and commentators in their own sport. If Australians were banned from editing Australian themed articles then the Australian cuisine entry would be all about The Outback Steakhouse. You want to exclude Australians with cultural knowledge for fear of "bias", but you're happy to include the sort of blow-in off the WWW who posts on message boards calling Emu (or other brands) "Ugg knock-offs" without being privy to the long history of ugg boots outside of the Deckers context. In short, you want ignorance, fed by, and which may be fed the Deckers party line. That is why you want to exclude Australians and want to shop around for freshly ignorant reinforcements -- in the hope that the same sort of thing happens that happened in the court cases in California.Mandurahmike (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well P&W you came here looking for uninvolved advice, you attempted to exclude editors involved with the article, you thrown out policy and guideline links all of which have been refuted. The indpenedent editors you so desired have put considerable time in this they have look at the arguments and they even offered a solution which was rejected. Your response to all of their efforts is to launch into a personal attack, I see not point in continuing this farce and this discussion should be closed. Gnangarra 04:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Every indication is that the attentions of P&W is toxic to the progress of the Ugg topic articles. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The more you look the worse it gets. Do a search on the names of the various parties in the dispute. I'm not even talking about who has been active where -- though that's interesting too. The really discouraging thing is that many of the arguments made here were being made two years ago. This is not a case of someone needing a gentle explanation of the word consensus. There are gigabytes and gigabytes of the same stuff over and over. Ugg is a fashion phenomenon yadda yadda yadda. People were saying two years ago, yes that's fine, but it belongs in the brand article, since that's the fashion phenomenon. Can you conceive of any good-faith reason for that kind of single-mindedness over a period of years in the face of lo these many attempts to reason? Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok a lot has been said of late. Where do we see this page going forward? I’m sure no one wants to keep spouting heroic couplets over fluffy footwear until the discussion reaches some kind of Rape of the Lock absurdity. There’s a lot of support for moving the all of the trademark disputes to a separate page. If it leads to a small modicum of peace, that is ok by me. I don’t really know how to feel about starting from scratch on the main page. On the one had it’ll require sorting what information is notable enough to be in the entry and that could get messy. On the other hand, starting over and looking things with fresh eyes may ultimately prove fruitful.


 * There have been inaccuracies dating back to the earlier days of this entry. My theory is that a lot of that stemmed from the initial shock from the original trademark controversy in Australia. I think that is would be fair to say that people felt angry and vented that anger on Wikipedia. As recently as 2009, it was claimed that 2006 IP Australia decision affected Deckers’ American trademarks. As time has passed that kind of vitriolic fury has faded and inconsistencies have been corrected, remnants still remain and it may be an opportunity to strip this entry down to essentials.


 * I honestly believe that we are not that far off from agreement. I think that most of us agree that ugg is used commonly in Australia and New Zealand to describe a type of sheepskin boot. I think that most of us can also agree that in the rest of the world, a majority of people think of a brand when they hear UGG. I think that most of us agree that any company can use Ug, Ugh, Ugg to describe their products in Australia and that outside of Australia only one company is allowed to use UGG. I don’t think these are completely contradictory concepts or that one is nationalist posturing or that one is corporate machination. I think the disambiguation page is a solid idea and that it should continue to be developed. It is a very tidy way of keeping things clear, allowing the entries to be simple and straightforward in their purposes. There's a lot of positive directions we can take here.--Factchk (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope that the neutral observers of this discussion will recognise that Factchck (a genuine single-purpose account) has suggested a change from *well-established consensus* (including via several requests for external comment) in proposing a disambiguation page to take the place of ugg boots, a change which no doubt would be to the commercial advantage of Deckers but of no advantage to readers who are making genuine enquiry into ugg boots by reading an encyclopaedia. Donama (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Donama. The idea of a disambiguation page was suggested initially by Elinruby. You proclaimed abstention from the discussion of that proposal which was supported by Bilby, Mike, Wayne, and I. When I put forth a possible improvement, I solicited opinion from several folks both familiar and unfamiliar but all of whom had commented previously on this discussion including P&W, Bilby, Johnuniq, and Elinruby. I made a deliberate effort to be polite and courteous. I’ve rarely asked others to comment on anything I’ve posted and I’ve never solicited a RFC, posted on a notice board, nor lodged any protest against any editor. I’ve tried to remain positive, friendly, and focused on the task at hand which is improving the entry itself.--Factchk (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Factchk, you are mistaken if you think I proposed this. Possibly I mis-used some terminology -- I think the first one said "disambiguation at the top" by which I meant that the ugg style boots page should have a link at the top saying "UGG Australia" and vice versa. I think that is what Mike is calling a hat-note, though I did not know the term at the time. If that's the source of confusion, then my apologies to all concerned. I think that the ugg boot style page (or whatever the correct name is) should talk about the style of boots and that the UGG Australia page should talk about the brand of boots. The trademark disputes are notable enough for their own page but if nobody wants to write one then they belong with the trademarked item or the trademark owner. That's what I think. I am not sure why this is hard. Or controversial. Please re-read the two proposals I *did* make, or make your own without reference to me. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I must have misread that. That was a goof on my part. I think that I agreed with the general principle of trying to keep this all from getting too muddled. Again sorry for the misrepresentation.--Factchk (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not quite how it was presented - if it's about turning "ugg boots" into a disambiguation page then I absolutely do NOT support it. What I support is "Ugg Australia" and "ugg boots" having their own pages without the first invading the other beyond the point of important mentions of their history with relation to the greater history of ugg boots. I am with Donama on this and I am quite sure the others who supported that earlier proposal had this in mind. The hatnote we have now on "ugg boots" is more than sufficient as disambiguation without robbing ugg boots of their most natural term of description and sending them off somewhere via disambiguation to "ugg boots in Australia" or something equally clunkyMandurahmike (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Let's vote.
I propose a vote on the following questions. Please vote by bolding yes or no, followed by a brief explanation if you want to write one. Please do not vote if any ANI or SPI proceeding has ever found you a likely sockpuppet, meatpuppet or puppetmaster, or if you do not have at least two edits, pre-dating this proposal, on some subject other than ugg, UGG or Deckers. I think Factchk is still eligible under those terms and am tentatively ok with that.

Again, votes here are non-binding, but if some sort of consensus can be achieved, perhaps the article can be unlocked.
 * Let's make that question 1, actually. Is Factchk a bona fide participant, ie should he/she be allowed to vote on the following.
 * 2.Mentions of UGG brand and associated trademark disputes *on the ugg boots page* should be limited to a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail on some other page.
 * 3.The opinions of J.Lo and anyone else on the subject of UGG brand boots belong elsewhere than on the ugg boots page.
 * 4.Mentions of Australian boot manufacturers are just as pertinent to the ugg boots page as the American brand.
 * 5.The UGG Australia page should have a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail elsewhere, of the existence of an ugg boot style.

Let's start with that. This leaves open the question of what the name of the boot style page should be, as well as whether trademarks should be on their own page, but if consensus happens here then you guys can try those. Maybe? Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not have an opinion regarding vote #1. I vote yes on 2 through 5. I expect that "well down the page" refers to article body text. I think the lead section should summarize the article, so significant "well down the page" text will have a brief presence in the lead. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to vote on point one. Factchk, as Donama says above, is a fairly unambiguous SPA; however, I am not sure if it's my place to decree this one way or the other. I will have to think about that one.


 * Yes to question 2, although I have no problem if Ugg Australia is mentioned early or even in the lede with something like "the style gained worldwide exposure due to blah blah - link to Ugg Australia". Yes to questions 3-5.


 * Unfortunately, as you've seen from the ugg boots talk page, points 2 through 5 are pretty much what the vast majority (not including SPAs and meatpuppets) of participants in the ugg boots discussion have been saying for two years. The simple majority consensus is not in dispute. The problem is that a certain editor doesn't care about consensus and makes edits anyway and filibusters moves to rework the article into the consensus view. The only way I can see this changing is through some sort of administrative action by Wikipedia - otherwise, consensus will simply be ignored again on the grounds that "Australians are biased" and "neutral editors were fooled by the Australian editors".Mandurahmike (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1: Abstain. For the obvious reason that I am biased about myself. 2: Yes. Short summary is fine, this should hold true for all disputes including those in Australia. Separate page is a good idea to provide extra details. 3: Yes. Might be pertinent with regards to expansion in US popularity if the scope wishes to be international, but it is understandable that some would find it superfluous. 4: Yes. This is correct. In Australia, all manufacturers are on equal footing as Deckers. Outside Australia, they just have to call their product something else but can still sell sheepskin boots. 5: Perhaps. So long as it is properly marked as being used only in Australia and New Zealand. Maybe we could work in some form of the hatnote discussing the UGG(R) brand on the Ugg boot page. Like putting it in reverse.--Factchk (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh! point 1 isnt for us to reslove and should be taken elsewhere for the wider community to decide until then we should be accepting Factchk particiation in good fiath. Point 2 daughter articles are an accepted practice for subjects that are notable themselve and that have information that is beyond the primary subject. Point 3, a bit grey but if the sourcing is primarily a brand issue then it should primarily be on the brand page. As the brand also has a part in the style article this should get a brief mention as it(animal rights) relates to the style as well. Point 4. Individual mentions only if notable to the style, history or any other section. Point 5 basic article style is lede, followed by a description or history section then other sections based on significance hat note link to style in description section. Gnangarra 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (1) Agree. As far as I can tell all the confirmed sock puppets of Factchk (Erehwon36 and Erehwon37) and of P&W (Illume1999, Bigdog2828, Linda1997, Youngteacher and Barclaygla09) are currently blocked so won't be around to muddy the waters unduly. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There are no "confirmed sock puppets of ... P&W" in spite of your diligent efforts to obtain such a ruling without any notice to me. So please stop lying about that, Dave. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See here for the actual block concerned . I now await you presenting anything to back up your absurd allegations of "cultural bias" or whatever PC buzzword you're using this week. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Suspected," not "confirmed." Please stop lying about this, Dave. No PC buzzwords are appropriate here. Just stop lying, please. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (2) Agree. as to mentions of Deckers and UGG Australia brand. Not sure if trademark disputes are relevant at all but that can be addressed through the normal editing process. (3) Agree. It actually looks as if one of the opinions is framed to portray the holder of the opinion as a shallow thinker, instead of having any relevance to the subject. (4) Agree. Also, more pertinent than the current manufacturers would be pioneers of the style such as John Arnold. (5) Neutral. I think all it would really need is a hatnote advising readers of the existence of a page for the generic style, and for the first mention of ugg boots in the article itself to be a link back to the page for the generic style.Daveosaurus (talk) 06:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) ABSTAIN. (2)  Ugg Australia Brand (registered trademark), should be what the Primary/original focus of the article should be about.  For clarity, I believe you are talking PURELY about “trademark disputes” here.  YES, trademark disputes should be a SHORT SUMMARY well down the page, with links to further detail on some other page.  (3)  YES.  I don’t believe that Wiki is a good place for “pure opinion” of individuals, except if it is quoted language from somebody famous, for historical purposes...or, maybe EVEN the trademark debates.  I do think it's important that the Ugg boots got the "name" from a wife who was stressing that they were UGLY!  That is really excellent history, and is pertinent!  (4)  NO.  The Ugg Asutralia brand is what is best known world-wide.  If it weren’t for that, I wouldn’t have even heard (or cared) about the nomenclature “ugg or UGG.”  Any type of generic of this style should be listed late in the article (further down).  (5)  Definitive YES.  The generic ugg boot style is part of the history/background of what is known by most of the world today.


 * Christie, there is ALREADY AN ARTICLE about the Ugg Australia trademark - It's called "UGG Australia". Why do you want two identical articles about the same thing? I know you've likely been recruited from some forum to join this debate - hence your sudden appearance and zeal - but if you're going to contribute you should understand what we are debating rather than be a fresh breath of misunerstanding. An Ugg Australia article already exists - this article is not about Ugg Australia at all since the brandname article exists elsewhere - this is why the neutral editor who proposed this vote requested that brand new, single purpose users such as yourself refrain from voting in this long-running dispute. Remember, Wikipedia is not about what people think - what you, or others "care about" or what individuals (as you mention) or companies hold as opinions. It is about the TRUTH. The truth is that both "ugg boots (generic)" and "UGG Australia" exist and largely independent entities. Why can't they keep their own articles instead of making two about the brandname?


 * I would like to formally state, that I while I accept Factchk's role here, obvious meatpuppets such as this, who only appeared out of nowhere to be part of this discussion, be discounted from this vote as requested by the user who made the proposition.Mandurahmike (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike I feel I should point out what others have said about allowing the proper authorities to determine if someone is acting in bad faith. Christie began editing on Wikipedia a full month before this discussion began and has edits on several other pages. To my knowledge she has not been found to be a likely meatpuppet/sockpuppet in any investigation. By those standards she qualifies to participate in this discussion. You don’t have to agree with her opinion. I don’t think it’s fair to assume bad faith WP:DNB.--Factchk (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Factchk, what were those edits? I am not seeing them with a search on the username. I know there are other tools but I am on my way out the door and don't want to hunt for them. I set the number at two cause I saw you had edited transformers and something else -- was it Chicago Cubs? I see the appeal to AGF, but honestly, hasn't that been done to death on that page? I just, personally, find it very hard to believe in pixies and unaffiliated editors who feel so vehemently about a brand of boots. Even Apple users don't spent years arguing on wikipedia about stuff like this. @Christie, do you live in Las Cruces? How about you leave me a message on my user page describing the place and telling me why you care so much about UGG boots. That might maybe convince me you're real. Cause apart from you, this looks close to consensus. And right now, frankly, I don't think you are. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I found them. Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd also ask anyone, suspicious SPAs and otherwise, who are voting to make this article primarily about Ugg Australia - what is your justification for having two articles about the same thing, particularly as the existing article has a hat-note directing to Ugg Australia (if that's what someone is looking for). Also, assuming such an outcome for the article became a reality - what happens to the style of boot which would have been (for Wikipedia purposes) robbed of its first and most natural signifier? What would you do, for example, if one day Coke manages to trademark the word "cola". I can't see how anyone without a serious COI would want to REDUCE the amount of information on Wikipedia. The only people for whom blurring the lines between brand and style hold any benefits for whatsoever are Deckers.Mandurahmike (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On the proposals: Donama (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Abstain - I don't know. If 'bona fide participant means' not a single purpose account, then FactChk should not participate here, but if that is allowed in a vote like this then Factchk should be included.
 * 2. Agree - A summary in main body with about brands of ugg boots, particularly Ugg Australia.
 * 3. Agree - Public statements about the ugg brand belongs on the Ugg Australia page. If it ambiguous as to whether the celebrities were referring to generics or the Ugg Australia brand then I'm very willing to compromise on that. But still any mention on the ugg boots page should observe the due weight guideline.
 * 4. Neutral - I don't really like the way this is worded. What I think is that brands should not be a major focus of Wikipedia, regardless of what country they're associated with. What is clear on Wikipedia at present is that some brands are more notable than others. If they have a Wikipedia article (two I know of are Ugg Australia and Uggs-N-Rugs) then that's a fair indication of notability and they should be mentioned in the summary of brands (as specified in point #2).
 * 5. Disagree - Ugg Australia is a specific instance of ugg boots. Thus the lead should read something like "Ugg Australia is an international brand of ugg boots" and that should not be buried deep down.


 * Since there has been such a diligent effort to highlight unproven allegations about SPA/sock/meatpuppet status by the AU/NZ editors, I feel it's only fair to point out that Gnangarra, Bilby, Donama, Mandurahmike and WLRoss are from Australia, and Daveosaurus is from New Zealand. Therefore all of them may be affected by cultural bias, and less weight should be accorded to their votes. According to WP:MTPPT the number of votes one way or the other should also be given less weight, in favor of policy based arguments. Anything here that could be summarized by WP:LIKE or WP:IDL should be disregarded. On the proposals:


 * 1. Agree. Factchk is a bona fide participant and, to the extent that his arguments are based on Wikipedia policy, they should be given greater weight that arguments by an Australian editor with 10,000 unrelated edits, but knows what he likes and doesn't like about the article, may be swayed by cultural bias and hasn't even bothered to mention policy.
 * 2. Disagree. I find it difficult to believe that any Australian editor would consent to cutting one more word out of the "summary" of the Uggs-N-Rugs/Mortels vs. Deckers case. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT (part of the bedrock WP:NPOV policy) indicates that other cases, in other countries, should be given equal weight.
 * 3. Agree. I'm unaware of any relevant statement by Jennifer Lopez. The statement by Pamela Anderson, since it objects to the use of sheepskin, appears to object to all ugg boots (the style), rather than just one brand. So according to the terms of this proposal, the Pamela Anderson statement would stay in the article.
 * 4. Disagree (per WP:N policy). Some brands are notable and others are not. Once we get past that threshold, the number of mentions for any particular brand should be governed by WP:WEIGHT.
 * 5. Agree. I don't see anything wrong with this proposal according to policy.


 * Three out of five. That's better than you were expecting, isn't it? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I just knew I was going to get mad. That is why I started with a sigh. P&W, you qualify based on the number of edits, but did HelloAnnyong yes or no not say that he/she was pretty sure there was meatpuppetry going on in this article?


 * Funny you should cite WP:MTPPT. Yes, it does say that votes are not binding. I said *that* way up at the top of this section. This is a non-binding vote which does however make it clear that with some shades of grey there's a possible consensus if you exclude people with meatpuppet cases. The WP:MPPT policy *also* says that one editor plus meatpuppets is one vote for purposes of consensus, by the way.


 * What's really hard to tell is who's a meatpuppet of who, around here. For instance, you seem to have appeared fully formed one day on an administrator noticeboard admonishing someone not to bite the newbies. Um, some *other* newbie, who supposedly had more edits than you. Along the way you because so attached to your wife's boots that you sang their praises in six or was it seven languages, with particular attention to the trademark cases. I mean, really. Do you *seriously* expect me to believe that? Factchk seems to have had his own adventures in sockpuppetry investigations, and Christie, giggle, Christie.... also appeared fully formed on the very day that Daveosaurus requested a sockpuppet investigation of you. How neighborly of you to welcome her an hour and a half after her very first edits -- which might be plagiarized, by the way, or a nursing textbook maybe stole from wikipedia, must remember to assume good faith...Except that if she wrote it she wrote real fast, paragraphs in a couple of minutes. But I digress, and perhaps I read the diff wrong. Other people have edited that article. But not you. Interestingly. You somehow noticed a brand new editor on a page you have never edited.


 * It could happen. Maybe you were reading this article about a nurse, you who seem pretty single-minded about editing one article at any given time, and saw something that needed to be fixed, and clicked history, and said gee, let me click this editor's name, and saw she was new, and wanted to welcome her. Within an hour an a half of her first edit.


 * Please.


 * The interesting thing about this non-binding, unofficial poll though is that since people are participating solely because I don't give a shit, I can *also* not give a shit about other things too. Like ya, I am commenting on editors. I see some here who need it.


 * Let's get one thing straight. Decker's is a legitimate stakeholder in these articles. But they are one entity and one only, and as far as *I* can tell they or their representatives have been playing sillybuggers with these articles in some sort of misguided SEO campaign. This is not good PR, people. It really is not.


 * As to your specious arguments above... ok, J.Lo didn't comment on the boots, she wore them. Equally irrelevant. It's not mentioning policy that matters, P&W, it's editing in the spirit of Wikipedia. Speaking of which, you appear to have a truly twisted concept of WP:WEIGHT. All Australians together count as one? But not Americans, apparently. Don't kid a kidder - I can play word games too. I just don't seem to feel the need to waste other people's time that way. Your editing patterns make no sense at all to me unless they are subsidized.


 * See, I can post a wall of text too. Someone please close this and take the matter to ANI. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. P&W, I still can't believe you started this whole mess coming here contending that the uggs boot page needs to say *less* about ugg boots! When less than a third of the page is on-topic! If you are not getting paid by the hour for this, then please please consider that the world may perhaps not be as you perceive it. That is the kindest way I can think of to phrase this. If it gets me in trouble, you know what? I don't give a shit. It's only Wikipedia, and my family thinks I am nuts to even have tried talking to you :) Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked at AN/I for this to be closed, even challenged them to read the whole discussion. [[file:Smiley green alien whatface.svg|20px]] Gnangarra 11:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's not appropriate to have two separate articles for Ugg. Absolutely, there can be links to other issues, such as Trademark Law. But there is no point in bringing confusion to the topic at hand by having multiple articles about Ugg. I've paid quite a bit of attention to the issue at hand. There are generics out there that do not compare. The generics can be listed as a separate issue amidst the main article, just as the history can be listed below. I suggest:

Ugg Australia (registered trademark)

A. BRAND DESCRIPTION

1. Types of products

2. Sales, statistics

3. History of the company – and people involved

B. HISTORY OF UGG BOOT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

1. Origination: Australia – dates, people involved (known fact)

2. How “ugg” got it’s name

3. Other history that is not verifiable – possibly, "hearsay"

C. TRADEMARK LAW AND DISPUTES

1. …

Oh... P.S.: My edits are generally on nursing and health care issues. I don't have enough knowledge about Ugg to add text to the article. But I can surely contribute to the article's organization so that it makes sense to the reader. The article shouldn't run all over the place, or be divided into multiple articles. If there is content that strays away, there should be links to identify it as such.

ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC) ChristieSwitz88001 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Being realistic, there is no possibility that any argument based on having only one article on ugg boots, with an almost complete focus on the single brand, is going to get consensus. The issue at hand needs to remain focused on how to provide balanced coverage of all the issues across two or more articles. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, what about using Christie's organization but changing around A and B as follows:


 * A. History of Ugg boots throughout the world
 * B. Brand description (including multiple brands if noteworthy enough to have their own articles)
 * C. Trademark law and disputes


 * This avoids "almost complete focus on the single brand." I've never advocated removing the "History" section, reducing it in size, or demoting it from its current place of prominence in the first section of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the issue of neutrality has been done to death here, can we please leave the NPOV discussion board for further discussion, given it's not related to neutrality, and allow this issue to be closed here. I do not see value in discussing article structure here. Further discussion belongs back at the ugg talk page. Thanks. Donama (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's time to move on, however, I am curious as to what the originator of this discussion things should be done now that it is he, not the Australian editors, who was fairly unambiguously deemed a POV and probably a COI editor of this article. I mean, presumably this discussion was launched so that something could be done about bias?Mandurahmike (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can help P&W here. I know you voted against #2 but I think that proposal #2 is pretty balanced. I’ve created what I feel is a good summary or at least a template for a summary and posted it on the Talk page where we can discuss the actual wording.--Factchk (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Revised December 16. --Factchk (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the interests of moving away from the NPOV talk page, Factchk, can you please repost a proposal for rewriting the trademarks section on the talk page and remove it from here. I don't want to take up any more space here. As to the resolution of this enormous discussion here, which is what I think Mike is getting at, I call on an appropriate uninvolved administrator to help us close it ASAP, since the neutrality question is done and dusted. Donama (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I’ve moved relevant discussion topics to the Talk page where the particulars can be discussed in detail. I agree, the discussion here has wrapped and any involved or uninvolved folks have had their say and we can move on to more productive matters now.--Factchk (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A compromise proposal
I think the following proposal should take all concerns into account:
 * Move Ugg boots to Fashion crime.
 * Extend the article so as to discuss other fashion crimes as well.
 * Keep the redirect fromm Ugg boots to Fashion crime.
 * Put the following note at the top of Fashion crime:

For further information on the background of this proposal, see WP:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations and related reports in the world media. Hans Adler 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PS to UGG Australia editors: I strongly suggest that you escalate this to your supervisor. Hans Adler 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh
I came across this matter when this war spilled over into sheepskin boots which was taken to AFD. In the course of sorting that out, I established that the Oxford English Dictionary, which is an authority on the English language, files the matter under the heading Ugh. Its usage examples show that the generic name for such boots has been variously spelt as ugh, ugg and ug. By following this authority and naming the article Ugh (boots) or similar, we would nicely avoid the trademark issue, as the trademark is UGG Australia, right?

As a precedent, please note that there was a similar dispute about the Slanket / Snuggie / Toasty Wrap / &c. &mdash; a variety of trade names for a popular type of leisure blanket. I resolved this by moving that article to Sleeved blanket and that seems to have been successful in quelling disputes between the competing commercial claims. The guidance of WP:NEO at the time was to "use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English". Moreover, MOS:TM stated, "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed". As there are numerous manufacturers of sheepskin boots and UGG now produce boots in a wide variety of styles, perhaps we should fold the sorry mess into sheepskin boots where we can focus upon the history of this footwear rather than current commercial interests. The title sheepskin boots is plain English which should be comprehensible to anyone.

Yet another good precedent is tree shaping. I also came across that at AFD &mdash; disputants often go there to try to stifle the competition. That matter seemed intractable and so ended up at Arbcom. Note that, among their rulings, they stated "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.".

Warden (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)