Talk:Ugg boots/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Return to the page

I just returned to this page. I assumed that this issue had been resolved and I am shocked that the dispute was turned down for being too "new" - I myself had commented that Ugg refers to a brand name more than a year ago. Seems like we are bending over backwards trying to be fair to New Zealand and Australia and their niche definition when in all the rest of the worlds population deems it a brand name for a sheepskin boot. Deckers even has the global trademarks to prove it but still everyone keeps arguing. Why? If someone is researching the boots in the USA or Europe or China they should know that Ugg is a brand name and that only that brand can actually put "Ugg" on their footwear. If people research on Wikipedia they would learn this - which seems very fair. No one wants to try to buy online and then find that customs has confiscated an illegal shipment. Phoenix and Winslow has provided so many references to this end, the fact is that 95% of the world knows Ugg is a brand name and five percent are just fighting the facts. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So how would you care to resolve it, Middlemarch2256? -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several single purpose accounts who like to work on this topic in order to put right the problem that some readers may not be get the message regarding the branding associated with this article. That is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, although some modest statements regarding the company and its brand may be suitable. The problem is that those promoting the company want to overdo it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again I am led to wonder whether it's time to open a WP:SPI and sort this out once and for all. — e. ripley\^talk 13:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do it, Ripley. Then be prepared to apologize when the results come back negative. It will be sorted out, once and for all. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Current state of the article.

Starts a lot better than it used to, but then becomes an essay about Deckers and court cases. All the stuff about the trademark dispute could be summed up with something to the effect that there has been a dispute with different results and a short explanation. The giant block quotation about the La Cheapa court case belongs on the UGG Australia page. The focus of the article disappears midway through. Once again, the article is trying to be two completely contrary things at once. Simplification of this would create a much more encyclopaedic tone for the article. State the facts, provide hatnotes in sections and let people decide for and educate themselves at the appropriate articles.

I also don't mind the mention of how Deckers has caused an explosion in the popularity of the boot, but the annual income doesn't of Ugg Australia doesn't really gel with the tone of the article to that point either. It's even contradictory with the article hitherto having been about the style of boots when suddenly we get "Deckers' actions to promote their product "led to an exponential growth in the brand's popularity and recognizability.". Brand info belongs on the brand page. The brand is "Ugg Australia", not "Ugg Boot".Mandurahmike (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is without the trademark dispute, Ugg boots would fail notability so it needs to be appropriately covered. Counterfiet issues and sales volumes are Ugg Australia topics not the style. The condition of the article back in May/june was better than it is now, what this article is focused on now is substancially original research based on court documents, what needed is for the SPA to recognise that there is a difference between ugg boots the style and ugg boots the brand. Unfortunately that goes against what Deckers is spending condiserable amounts of money to make happen. Gnangarra 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the dispute is about whether there is any generic usage at all (certainly Deckers position is that there is not), I think the trademark issue should be treated in this article in some fashion. However I agree that it's way overblown at the moment. — e. ripley\^talk 13:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I agree it should be mentioned, but it's overblown with extra details that belong on the UGG Australia page rather than here. Also, we've got two court cases presented to counterpoint each other and highlight "the debate", but they are basically about different things. The first is about the generic usage of the term "ugg" the second is about deliberate attempts to knock-off Deckers styles and designs. Completely unrelated issues with the second (systematic cloning of SPECIFIC Deckers designs, whatever they may be named), in my opinion, having absolutely no place in this article.Mandurahmike (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with this take. Here is how I wrote the trademark section to rework the morass of WP:OR and primary sources that had been there before. I would recommend it as a decent starting point once again. Take a look. [1]. — e. ripley\^talk 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - this is what an article like this should be like in an encyclopaedia. It tells you what's happening without changing the focus of the article.Mandurahmike (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, look at the Budweiser article again, gentlemen. An article about a generic term that has become a trademark in most of the world. The first half is disambiguation, and the second half is about the trademark disputes. That article has been stable for years, because there aren't any Czechs pushing an anti-Anheuser Busch POV. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Its stable because there aint Anheuser–Busch InBev WP:SPA editors denying that the term existed before and beyond the company. Gnangarra 12:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also not a large section and giant quote about people trying to copy the exact taste of Budweiser (brand) beer being used as an argument against the existence of a generic term. The juxtaposed court cases here don't even relate to each other as they are about entirely different issues. It's perfectly valid to have content here about the debate about the use of the term as generic versus trademarked, but the counterfeiting of Deckers products belongs on the Deckers page.Mandurahmike (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your capitalization of "Ugg", Gnangarra: Do you mean "ugg" or "UGG" -- would ugg boots not be notable without the trademark dispute, or would UGG (aka UGG Australia) boots not be? (I'd have thought that both would be: ugg boots because they're a recognizable style with a moderately interesting if murky history; UGG boots because they're churned out in large quantities.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots is ugg boots is ug boots is ugh boot unless they're UGG boots, this article is about ugg boots and UGG boots with UGG Australia solely about UGG brand related issues(sales,counterfeits,marketing etc). Wikipedias basis of notability is that someone writes about them, ie creating multiple sources independent of the subject the only reason there are multiple sources independent of the subject is because of the trademark dispute, if Deckers wasnt so gungho about taking everybody to court we'd only have an article about Deckers Outdoor Corporation with a section about UGG Australia where the biggest issue would have been about using real skins. Gnangarra 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be two pages. One for the Australian term ugg referring to a style of boot and one for the World-Wide know brand UGG. There could be a note saying...if you want to learn about Australia's term ugg please see.... and then a similar note for the brand UGG and their world-wide trademarked brand of products. Then people can choose what they want to read about. A generic term used only in Australia and New Zealand or the Decker's brand UGG.(98.108.217.178 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC))

There already is two pages. This one and "Ugg Australia". We also already have the hatnote "This article is about the type of footwear. For the brand known as "UGG", see UGG Australia" at the top.22:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have more or less a consensus about this. I feel the Dutch court case needs to go. It's not even accurate. It starts out "A similar challenge was also rejected by a Dutch Court" is not only original research, but is a flat out fallacy. It's pretty clear that the court cases are in no way similar beyond the fact they both involve Deckers and Ugg Boots. Does anyone want to provide some sort of argument as to why the cases can be tied together as similar beyond the extremely superficial? I don't think one exists. We've got a case about a trade marked name versus the case of counterfeiting of actual designs.Mandurahmike (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't have (more or less) a consensus about this. And I must say that you have an interesting editing history. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with P&W. There has been anything but consensus for years now. There has been debate about the fundamental nature of this entry from the very beginning. That we are even having this discussion is proof of it.--Factchk (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Top image of page

There's no good way to get multilingual consistency in Wikipedia, but I'm really not clear why an image of branded ugg boots is the top (or only) image on most of the other-language Wikipedia sites, when there is a really good representative picture that is also brand-inspecific available on the Commons (File:UggBoots_SMC.JPG). I note, the recent Polish-language version is an exception. Donama (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Should we include other names for Ugg Boots?

Such as Ug Boots, Ugh Boots, Ugly Boots, Uggies and variants listed as alternatives beyond "Uggs" (something I've never heard them called outside of the Deckers context - note that I am NOT saying "Uggs" should be removed as people certainly call them that too)? Most other pages online about these boots list alternative names so it seems odd they aren't listed here.Mandurahmike (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

they have been listed/mentioned/covered from time to time in the article but its something that comes and goes. Gnangarra 14:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Was "Uggies" just a Western Australian thing? I never heard them referred to as "Uggs" and the more casual Aussie diminutive term "Uggies" was most often used when referring to the boots. I'm certainly not disputing that people refer to them as Uggs, but I think some of the other names (ugh, ug, uggies) warrant inclusion again as relevant to the item being described.Mandurahmike (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Readdition of cruft

This reversion of a careful removal of stuff specific to counterfeiting (as I believe the word is conventionally spelled) does nothing to help understanding of a kind of boot called uggs and is most anomalous for articles on products. This material might belong in UGG Australia -- and if the court case is so very significant, then create an article about it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit got rid of spelling errors, irrelevancies (a general interest encyclopedia does not need patent numbers included in the text), improperly formed abbreviations (there's no need to introduce USPTO at all much less without explaining the abbreviation), the excess quoted text about the California case which I paraphrased instead for readability, and the blockquote and strange assertion about the media coverage of the Dutch case per WP:UNDUE. Clearly there is a consensus for my edit, as it's the one that currently stands. — e. ripley\^talk 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" in normal English means that everybody agrees. "Consensus" in contorted Wikipediaese means that the majority agrees. I think it's safe to say that the majority hereabouts prefers your version. The fact that it's the current version (or was, the last time I looked) doesn't prove anything though. -- Hoary (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. In any case, we'll see in the fullness of time. — e. ripley\^talk 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Explicitly Not Recognized in AU

Currently it says that the UGG Australia TM is explicitly not recognized at per a 2006 ruling. This is totally untrue. A quick search of IP Australia's database reveals that the UGG Australia trademark is still valid. The 2006 decision was in reference to a mark entitled "UGH-BOOTS." To say otherwise is to promote a blatant falsehood.--Factchk (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So far there have been at least three decisions from IP Australia: the first was that UGG and UGG BOOTS were generic references to sheep-skin boots, the Dockers trademark was revoked; the second regarding Dockers UGG AUSTRALIA label with sun-like detail (see text of third decision), it was a two-way decision, with Dockers getting the right to use that label in Australia, but restricted to just ugg boots; finally the 2010 decision has made it clear that Luda Productions, and not Dockers, have the right to use the label UGG AUSTRALIA, and label and phrase MADE BY UGG AUSTRALIA on Australian Soil. To be consistent with this, and to ensure that an Australian doesn't incorrectly conclude that the ugg boots labeled "UGG AUSTRALIA" they purchase within Australia is owned by Dockers and conversely someone in the USA purchasing Docker's UGG Australia brand isn't lead to believe that those boots were made in Australia (unless so marked), the opening disclaimer should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagneya (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I must revert the removal of the Dutch case blockquote by Bilby. As I said in the edit summary when reverting, "Sorry, but this is a landmark case in European IP law, and there are many factors in this ruling that are of interest to students of intellectual property." The case almost merits an entire Wikipedia article of its own. I've repeatedly posted links to several articles about this court case in the European press, in both law journals and fashion magazines. The fact that they aren't in English is completely irrelevant, and those who may complain about it are exhibiting bias.

Kindly review this diff, Bilby: [2] While there is some support on this page for removal of the blockquote, there is simply no consensus. For such a contentious issue, consensus must be clearly and explicitly demonstrated. Sorry, Bilby. You have the best of intentions, but there just isn't consensus for it — nor should there be, considering the importance of this case in European legal circles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument you've provided for keeping that case in the article is that it saw the use of the "generic term" defence. While that may be sufficient for retaining coverage of the case, the quote has nothing to do with that at all, and solely relates to "passing off" the goods as Deckers products. That's not relevant to the section, and puts undue weight on what is still a relatively minor case. I'm not objecting to the preceding paragraph, as it makes mention of the generic term defence, just the extensive quote which doesn't. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You describe this case as "relatively minor," perhaps because you don't live in Europe. Under European intellectual property law, this is a landmark case similar to Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education. If this were the Dutch version of Wikipedia, it would definitely be notable enough to have its own article. Pretending it is a "relatively minor" case is not in the best interests of the Wikipedia project, which is supposed to serve all English-speaking people in the world: not just those who live in Australia and New Zealand, but also those who live in the United States and Europe, a far larger number of people.

It is an example of an unscrupulous Australian boot manufacturer trying to get rich from marketing efforts of an American company, through deceptive practices. The Australian manufacturer, acting through its agent in the Netherlands, engaged in a comprehensive pattern of deceptive conduct that barely avoided crossing the line into criminal felony territory. Instead, the Dutch sales agent was assessed the maximum civil penalty that the law would allow.

Much has been written in this article about the case in Australia which was just as "relatively minor" as the Dutch case, but it made the Aussies look good, and the Yanks look bad. In fact that case was all this WP article talked about for several years. This Dutch case makes the Aussies look bad, and the Yanks look good. And so we see a comprehensive effort to cut down coverage of this case in Wikipedia.

There have been other uses of the generic term defense in China and Singapore. And three counterfeiters were thrown in prison in the UK for contempt, after they were ordered to stop distributing fake UGG brand boots, yet continued to do so. I've already posted links to reliable sources here on the Talk page. I'd like to mention those cases in the mainspace as well.

The model for this article should be the Budweiser article, not a self-serving press release by Uggs-N-Rugs. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The case is that of a manufacturer making counterfeit goods, or at least making goods deceptively similar to those of another company. That happens a lot. Comparing that to Roe-vs-Wade is, to be honest, more than just a tad over the top. But my main point is still the same - the quote is not related to the generic term defence, and is thus unrelated to the topic of that section. I'm not opposing a mention of the case, because, as you say, it used that defence, so it is relevant to the discussion. But I do feel that the quote is unnecessary in the context of the article, and gives the case more weight than is warranted in the section. - Bilby (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby - the Dutch case block quote has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding information. It needs to go. It's continued presence gives the whole section a very POV feel by grabbing any old statement that comes out in favour of Deckers versus "unscrupulous companies out to rip them off" and throwing it on the pile, regardless of how it relates to the rest of the article. The block quote has no relevance to the rest of the section, that is, "Ugg boots as a generic TERM versus a copyrighted TERM". Once again, it's perfectly valid to have information about disputes over the TERM on this page, but disputes specific to Deckers and Deckers products belong on the Deckers or Ugg Australia page.Mandurahmike (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

P&W - you'll have to point out to me the bit on the Budweiser page where there's a huge block quote about a company deliberately copying the Budweiser (brand) taste and label design that's somehow inserted into the article despite having nothing to do with the debate about generic term versus copyrighted term. For someone who is so keen on 100% consensus rather than the mere nearly total consensus we have, you don't seem to be especially shy about making changes yourself while running us in the same rhetorical circles you've been repeating ad infinitum. The rest of us have been shown to be willing to accept compromise, you appear to be unable to accept any change that doesn't conform to your preferred ideal for the article.Mandurahmike (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike. It isn't me. It's that annoying, inconvenient Wikipedia policy called WP:WEIGHT, part of WP:NPOV. See below. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's role to right the wrongs of the world. If the issues about unscrupulous manufacturers and the Dutch case are notable, make an article about them. However, it is not acceptable to use other articles to promote the interests of the "good" manufacturer. I have asked several times that any material that promotes the interests of the "bad" manufacturers should be identified and removed – the solution is removal, not balancing by promoting the other side. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It IS Wikipedia's role to right the wrongs that Wikipedia has caused through its own unbalanced, biased, POV-pushing article these past several years. The Dutch case is at least the equal of the Australian case, in terms of its importance within its jurisdiction. Therefore it deserves at least equal weight in this article. The greater prominence of placement of the material about the Australian case (in the article lede and in a large portion of the first half of the article) requires that when we finally get around to mentioning the Dutch case, it must have at least equal space, if not more. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree strongly on this point. This article has had a serious bias since beginning. The reversal of this bias has also never been seriously considered.--Factchk (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out any of this "serious bias"?Mandurahmike (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Mike. I can point once again to the way that the one court case Deckers lost has been the subject of half the article for years, while the many cases that Deckers won were never mentioned until recently. When writing an article about the military history of Germany and France, would investing half the article in discussing the Franco-Prussian War (which German states won) and avoiding any mention of World War I and World War II (which Germany lost) be compliant with Wikipedia policy? Or would it show a pro-Germany bias? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Australian case is important because of the issue of ugg being a generic term. The Dutch case has no such importance. Therefore, no, it does not deserve equal weight. Donama (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Donama, but the Dutch case is about the generic term. Attorneys for the defendants relied on the generic term defense and they lost in spectacular fashion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't about the same things. How can you be arguing for the Dutch case as equal eight for the Australian case when They are about completely different issues that are only superficially connected? The Dutch case IS included in the article with relevant material regarding the use of the generic term - THAT is the equal weight. We don't need to skew the article with the irrelevant block quote.Mandurahmike (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, they aren't "about completely different issues." They're about the same issue: the existence (or in this case, nonexistence) of the generic term. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No. If previous articles (or the current article) contain undue promotion of Australian interests, we just remove the undue material and state the verified facts plainly. There is no policy or convention that articles should compensate for previous undue text by piling on undue material in the opposite direction. I was going to suggest that the mention of AU/NZ in the lead be removed, but on re-reading it, I cannot see that anything in the current article contains a promotion of AU/NZ interests. If there is such material, please identify it.

The statement in the lead about Deckers holding the UGG trade mark in most countries is wildly OR (the ref asks the reader to search at the WIPO website to verify the claim). Isn't there some neutral way of stating the situation without all the nonsense that is of no interest to readers? Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How can you be certain that it's "of no interest to readers"? But we have found a reliable source that states Deckers holds the trademark in over 100 countries. So it's appropriate to include it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of other cruft (or not)

In this edit, an editor removed:

''Westhaven Industries,'' a non-profit organisation that employs the intellectually disabled, has been making Ugg boots since the early 1970s and the ''[[Macquarie Dictionary]]'' had listed ugg/ugh boots as a generic term for the footwear from 1981 until threats of litigation forced its removal.<ref name="Hansard"/>

and

In response, the issue [sc. of the trademarking of "ugg"] was discussed in the [[Australian House of Representatives]] where [[Bob Baldwin|Robert Baldwin]] [[Member of Parliament|MP]] compared the controversy to an Australian company trying to buy the trademark "[[cowboy boot]]".<ref name="Hansard"/>

were removed, with the edit comment Removing cruft. Now, I do see problematic aspects to what was removed. (As just one example, I'd like to know whether one could accurately add either (a) "to loud bipartisan applause and shouts of 'Hear hear!'" or (b) "to bipartisan eye-rolling and derisive laughter" to Baldwin's comparison.) But I do wonder whether these are "cruft" or anyway if they're better deleted. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure they really add much to the article. This is the sort of thing, pro and con arguments alike, that may bloat the section beyond what's reasonable. We shouldn't really be trying to argue the question inside this article, beyond what's necessary for lay readers to understand the bones of the conflict. — e. ripley\^talk 13:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - the less bloat in that section the better in this section.Mandurahmike (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw the removal and endorse it. It is conceivable that the removed material could be DUE and rewritten into some part of the article, but 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. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing it either - I'd rather not see this turn into a list of manufacturers, and while mention in Parliament may be of some significance, I'm no sure how much. - Bilby (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Was happy with removal because doesn't seem to fit there. Not cruft though. Donama (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The removal is appropriate. I sounds awfully partisan and may not be factually accurate. I sounds like hearsay and opinion to me.--Factchk (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit we are talking about is exactly like many performed by yourself: it is WP:SYNTH with various factoids using somewhat reliable sources. The fact that the edits in question are on the opposite side to that which you have promoted does not make it appropriate for a comment they are "awfully partisan". The claims are sourced to a speech given in the Australian Parliament and seem extremely plausible, so they are certainly not "hearsay and opinion", and there is no reason to doubt they are "factually accurate" (and in fact the second claim is verified, while the first is true according to the speaker, but is very likely to be correct). I explained why the edits are not appropriate for Wikipedia above. Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq is right here; the problem with the information isn't that it was "factually [in]accurate," "partisan," or "hearsay and opinion," it's because of WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. It's factual, accurate, adequately sourced material that simply does not add to the article enough to warrant its inclusion, beyond the fact that it's borderline cherrypicking. It's an editorial judgment. — e. ripley\^talk 17:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in opening para doesn't make sense.

I refer to "Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds the UGG trade mark in most countries[2][original research?] except Australia and New Zealand where ugg, ugh and ug were removed from the Australian register in 2006"

Actually, Decker's UGG Australia is still registered in Australia, see Australian Registration No. 785,466. They did remove UGH Boot though.(Hapamama (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

In IP Australia's most recent 2010 ruling they, in referring to Deckers trademark, describe it an UGG AUSTRALIA label with sun-like design, that is, it is for a mark, and not the words. Of course, subject to appeal. It also turns out that within Australia Luda Productions are huge while Deckers are largely irrelevant (next time I'm down under I'll have to check this out). Given this, and given that it is important that the article remain neutral, I'd like to suggest that the opening paragraph simply state that the article refer to Ugg boots, and that there are a number of manufacturers which can be listed in a separate section. To look at it another way, an Australian reading this article would incorrectly conclude that UGG AUSTRALIA boots (most likely made by Luda Productions) they just purchased were actually made by Deckers. Cagneya (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC) cagneya

This doesn't quite make grammatical sense and the mention of the removal of the names from the AU register would be less clunky as a new sentence.

Also, you can't really say "most countries except Australia and New Zealand" - it sounds..... weak, like it can't quite say "every country except Australia and New Zealand", but wants to imply this. Like saying "Most days I go to the beach except for Sunday" - it's not quite grammatically Kosher. So which is it? Do Deckers own the trademark in EVERY country except for Australia and New Zealand or don't they? If they do, change it to:

"Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds the Ugg trademark in every country except Australia and New Zealand. "Ugg, ugh and ug were removed from the Australian register in 2006."

I'd actually question the need to even have "Ugg, ugh and ug were removed from the Australian register in 2006." in the lead anyway since this is mentioned in the body of the article. Right now it would have the reader going "huh? why?" - I think it's enough to say they don't own the trademark in AU and NZ and leave it at that, with the explanation in the trademark dispute section further in,

Now, if Deckers does NOT own the trademark in every country but Australia, this is going to require more work. This article - http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/tag/intellectual-property/ - from September this year says Deckers owns the TM in "over 100 countries" which is just over half. Right now it's bordering on weasely with the "most countries except Australia and New Zealand" and I wouldn't argue for "many countries" as much better. Prefer something along the lines of "Deckers owns the trademark etc etc in more than [X amount of] countries worldwide. Notable exceptions are Australia and New Zealand where the term is considered generic."Mandurahmike (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Use the sentence you suggest in your last paragraph. It is a good quality summary which is all there should be in opening paragraphs and it is all supported by sources we have cited in the article. Donama (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. — e. ripley\^talk 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, note: the edit is made as my IP address as I forgot to login.Mandurahmike (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source I found that lists all the UGG trademarks held by Deckers worldwide.[3] Everyone is welcome to run searches at the WIPO website, to confirm that the list is accurate. It's well over 100 countries. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, did you curate that PDF yourself? These keepandshare.com sources appear to be original research by Wikipedia editors. There are no external marks to indicate it's a genuine verifiable published resource. Can you explain where you sourced that information so I and other editors can verify the source? Secondly, that PDF has a non-composite tradmark of the word "UGG" in Australia, which is not upheld in Australia, so that's totally misleading and makes me doubly suspicious that this is original research. When I attempted to cross reference the supposed registration of the word "UGG" in Australia at the IP Australia ATMOSS search engine, it comes up with a completely different trademark for something called Flexcube. Donama (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been no judicial decision saying that UGG is a generic term in Australia or New Zealand. For a term to be truly generic a court has to decide, and that has not happened in this case.(Hapamama (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC))

For it to legally be considered generic, yes. But for it just to be considered so, no. The line doesn't state that this is a legal determination of "generic", so it should be sufficient. And it is sourced in the body, so all should be good. - Bilby (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is misleading in the lead when it says that in Australia "UGG is considered generic", when technically it is not generic.(Hapamama (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Technically it is generic in Australia. There's the dictionary sources and other material cited in the trademark hearings to attest to that. Even on casual observation this is clear because there's no legal enforcement of a trademark on the word 'ugg' (the Deckers' trademark in Australia is a composite mark) and multiple trading names and brand names use the word ugg to market ugg boots. Donama (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet, Australian companies are not allowed to use the UGG mark to market their boots outside of Australia.(Hapamama (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

Well, yes. I think this is well established. The term is in generic usage in Australia and New Zealand. That doesn't mean it isn't trademarked outside, as Phoenix and Winslow has shown. Two two claims are not incompatible. - Bilby (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fake websites

I have removed the third paragraphs counterfeit website for Ugg boots. http://www.uggstiefeloutlet.com/Ugg-Ultra-Tall-boots/index.htm -this website is all counterfeit and should never be listed here - it is just an attempt by counterfeiters to draw customers away from the real Ugg brand. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a commercial link of no value so that's why it shouldn't be there. You know that you can only talk about fakes or counterfeits when dealing with a brand (eg. UGG Australia) but not with generic ugg boots. Donama (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I put the above link in nowiki tags so the spam is not clickable, and doesn't clutter LinkSearch. 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

New Zealand?

In the history section, NZ is tagged behind Australia as the ugg boot's birthplace, but from my research NZ had little to do with the origins of the ugg boot. Articles such as the Telegraph's The story of Ugg (published today) do not even mention NZ. NZ's role in ugg boot history should be downplayed to reflect the wider consensus that it is an Australian invention (if you can call it that). 203.206.60.35 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Even this article on ugg boots, published by a New Zealand newspaper, opens with "They are as Australian as Rolf Harris", and doesn't mention any New Zealand involvement in the development of the ugg boot.124.148.251.193 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Another NZ source ("The Way We Wore: the clothes New Zealanders have loved", Richard Wolfe, Penguin Books, Auckland, 2001) blames Australia for ugg boots: "...Australia was responsible for introducing another oddity to the New Zealand wardrobe in the 1970s. According to the Australian Magazine (July 10-20, 1997), in 1965 John Arnold of Adelaide came up with the idea..." It would be interesting to see the magazine article cited if anyone has access to it as it should clear up a lot of the confusion as to where and when they originated. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! The relevant quote is from the Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business. It reads:

"As with other Australian icons such as the Pavlova and the Jandal, New Zealand claims earlier proprietorship. It is suggested that ugg boots have a hundred year heritage in New Zealand, which introduced them to Australia through kiwi sheep shearers and later through surfers. Ugg boots from New Zealand, http://www.miranda.co.nz/uggboots-article.htm (last visited Mar. 8, 2008)" (p 188)

It is a footnote to a line earlier in the page:

"Their origin is much disputed, but it is suggested that they originated in rural Australia in the 1920's." (p 188)

Miranda.co.nz is offline, but the journal article is a fair summary of what it said. Otherwise I'm not too bothered one way or the other. :) I think that the journal article provides evidence of a dispute of origin between Australia and NZ, but doesn't provide any more details than the above. - Bilby (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'm in New Zealand and I honestly had never seen ug boots claimed as a New Zealand invention until first reading this article (unlike pavlova and Jandals - although the obvious solution to the Jandals controversy is to acknowledge that New Zealand invented Jandals and that Australia invented Thongs). Harry Orsman does not include the term in A Dictionary of Modern New Zealand Slang, which is annoying as he was good for giving earliest NZ and Australian recorded usages for comparison. Not only is miranda.co.nz down but it seems to be home to a domain squatter and searching Google for the domain name in other contexts doesn't bring up very much - a few clothing/outdoors pages and a lot of circular references and broken links. If I weighed up what I'd found from various sources it would overwhelmingly favour an Australian origin for the word. Incidentally I'd think that sheepskin boots themselves had existed for thousands of years - the trick is to trace down that point between the 1920s and 1965 when they became ug boots. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Matt Warshaw's The Encyclopedia of Surfing, ugg boots "were invented in the late 1960s by cold-footed surfers in Torquay, Victoria". 124.148.251.193 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The bit about Deckers' sales figures.

This part seems a bit tacked on and redundant for the purposes of this article. Isn't it enough to say that the company has caused an explosion of popularity and recognisability for the boot?

Also, is an increase of 14.5 million dollars in sales, IE $674.5M up to $689M in thirteen years from 1995 to 2008 really statistically significant, particularly when you consider elements such as inflation over that time? This seems argue *against* the concept of exponential growth rather than for it. What is that, just over a 2% increase in thirteen years? Hardly an explosion. I don't think anyone is disputing that Deckers caused a high level of popularity and exposure for the style, but the Deckers' sales products neither belong here, nor do they act in support of the previous statement. OR - is it the 14.5 million one saying there was an increase of that much in that year alone? It's clumsily worded pieces of tacked together mini-facts.

Either way, I think we should remove any mention of the sales - it's enough to acknowledge the role Deckers has played in the popularity of the style today. The statement and linked reference to the sales references can stand alone to provide that info.

Also, I think since this article is about the -style- rather than BRAND of boot, the quote "led to an exponential growth in the brand's popularity and recognizability." needs to go. This article doesn't care about the BRAND's popularity. It's a valuable source, but it's jarring and ill-fitting. The spirit of the quote (and reference attached) should be retained, but paraphrased into something to establish that the STYLE has gained popularity through recognition and sales of the Deckers BRAND. The way we have it now it's talking about a boot style and then suddenly has a quote about some brand's popularity and would leave readers not au fait with the distinction between style and brand scratching their heads.Mandurahmike (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're making a couple of points here. One, the paragraphs ends weirdly from switching to talking about the history of ugg boots to talking about the explosion of a brand of ugg boots. I think it's trying to make the point that an explosion of Deckers' UGG sales in the 2000s meant that the popularity of ugg boots in general rocketed, especially on the international scene. And that is a valid point. But the wording is wrong and needs revising. Two, the paragraph does not need to and should not refer to Deckers' UGG sales figures to make a point. Regardless of whether the increase is exponential or not, it would be original research to link that to the increase in use/popularity of ugg boots generally. Thus it shouldn't be there at all. Donama (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I'd actually take it a step further and say the paragraph should end with the "After this was sold to Deckers Outdoor Corporation in 1995, ugg boots emerged as a fashion trend in the United States through Deckers' promotion of their brand". It's basically a paraphrased version of that quote I mentioned above anyway isn't it? I don't think we need any of the stuff about celebrities and Pamela Anderson at all because that's, again, Deckers' specific.Mandurahmike (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the celebrity piece is a key way in which Deckers' promotion was successful; celebrities started wearing them, then everybody started wearing them. That's a little overblown and simplified, but basically. I would support Mandurahmike's proposal, with one change, something like... "... through Deckers' promotion of their brand, which included celebrity endorsements" -- or such as that. Doesn't have to be extensive, but I think worth a mention as long as we're talking about it. — e. ripley\^talk 11:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the mention of celebrity endorsements, I think that would work.70.189.214.56 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention both the celebrities and Deckers amazing increase in sales because it supports the idea that this well known company created the international brand UGG and it's worldwide popularity. Isn't the fact that celebrities started wearing UGG boots part of the history of the boot, as well helping the popularity of the Deckers' brand which in turn led to higher sales.(Hapamama (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC))

If you are suggesting that Wikipedia should promote the idea that Deckers created a brand with worldwide popularity, my response is: no: Wikipedia should use neutral language to desribe due information supported by an analysis in secondary sources. Without such sources, our opinions on whether Deckers is wonderful are not relevant here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No John, I don't believe that's what she was suggesting at all. I believe she's saying that the increase in popularity of ugg boots (generic term) worldwide is due, in large part, to the marketing expenditures, product placements and celebrity endorsements of UGG boots (brand name). And MandurahMike, your statement at the top of this section is ridiculously off the mark. Sales rose from $14.5 million in 1995 to $689 million in 2008. This is an increase of 4,751 percent. Business school students in their wildest wet dreams have dreamed of such numbers. In the real world, an increase of 30-50 percent over a 13-year period is good, and an increase of 100-150 percent is remarkable. This is 4,751 percent, Mike. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Article in the Sydney Morning Herald

I finally had a chance to watch “The Good the Bad and the Ugg Boot” recently. I found it confusing that the “evidence” for ugg/ugh/ug as a generic term came after it was trademarked in 1971. The sheer (no pun intended) volume of origin stories makes it impossible to determine where/when the word was coined. Likewise, the accuracy of often-repeated myths that the Ugg boot was created by WWI pilots, turn of the century farmers or Frank Mortel in the 1950s is questionable. There is a difference between someone wrapping their feet in sheepskin vs. inventing the Ugg boot.

A reliable source, The Sidney Moring Herald reports that Shane Stedman created the Aussie Ugg boot in the early 1970's to keep surfers' feet warm in chilly Australian conditions.Sydney Morning Herald It also refers to Stedman as the "inventor" of the Ugg boot. Stedman later sold his rights to Deckers for 10,000 pounds and 3 pairs of UGG boots per year for life.--Factchk (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting article however; let’s not confuse a “trademark” with “rights”. Anyone can “trademark” a word or saying for almost anything. A “patent” is something that one puts on an invention “before” it goes into public domain. One has to ask, did Stedman’s trademark a different “composite” variation i.e. “Ugh-Boots” because ug or Ugg boots were already generically used in Australia?

The Sydney Morning Herald makes interesting reading but why now? And how does that endorse Deckers in any way that they have the original?

If you pay careful attention to the Australian Broadcasting Corporations documentary you will see that:

a. The McDougals found “Evidence”, not hearsay, of this name and style used in the 1960s (7 minutes into the film).

b. Deckers admitting that they only own the name UGG but not the style as “there was so much use prior” (8 minutes into the film)

c. Photographic evidence in 1968 of this style on a Surfer (23 minutes into the film)

It is well recognised that Stedman was one of the first major manufacturers and did trademark a variation in 1971 in Australia but after all these years for him to now claim that he “invented” Ugg boots seems a far stretch. And of course, if he did, history shows it went public and via the Sydney Morning Herald article, Stedman admits that many companies began making and selling these in Australia. How does this in any way relate to Deckers 24 years before they acquired the unused and abandoned “Trademark” UGH-Boots?

I will put my faith in a thorough, well researched documentary by the Australian government over an article that reported Stedman’s “claim” without any evidence whatsoever.

Additionally, as Deckers are now suing the USA manufacturer “BearPaw” for “Trade Dress” infringement claiming that the classic style is unique to Deckers, and only Deckers, doesn’t the timing of this sudden claim by Stedman seem a little suspicious?

--Illume1999 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As a teenager I remember girls wearing the boots in the late 60s and they were very similar in design to current boots and we all called them Ugg boots despite not knowing who manufactured them. They were all uncoloured (natural) and had a single central seam running from the toe to top at the front. At the time I assumed "hippies" made them because they had no tags, marks or even a shoe size on them. I didn't have anything to do with the surfie scene so can only say that they were worn by some girls who were also not involved in surfing although generally they were worn casually at home and not worn if going anywhere. For guys they were considered too feminine probably because this is how we saw the surfies at the time lol. Surfers were definitely wearing them in the 1960s and they were already known by the name then. Wayne (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is from the Wall Street Journal and quotes the founder of Deckers, Douglas Otto:

"Otto’s interest in UGG sprang in large part from his unique proximity to the niche sheepskin boot market. A graduate of the University of Santa Barbara, he grew up surfing the beaches of Southern California, where Australian sheepskin boots—advertised simply as “ugg boots”—began showing up in surf magazines as early as 1970.

During the mid-’70s, Otto and his wife, a native of Sydney, made numerous trips to the beaches of Australia. Surfers there had been pulling on ugg boots when they came out of the water in winter since the ’60s. By that time, the boots had become a cold-weather staple—a comfortable but style-free necessity that was gratefully tossed under the bed at the first sign of warm weather. So when an American surfer named Brian Smith began showing up selling ugg boots at surf-wear tradeshows in 1978, Otto took notice."

http://magazine.wsj.com/features/behind-the-brand/the-golden-fleece/tab/print/

--Illume1999 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In that portion of the film, they show an image of a person wearing sheepskin boots and Bruce McDougal says that he called them Ugg based on a comment from his wife. However, that conflicts with the claim that the Mortels made of the term existing in the 1950s. They also presented no hard evidence that the word was a generic term prior to the early 1970s. All they showed was that the style had existed. The first concrete evidence of the word being used comes from Stedman's 1971 mark. Since that is the only information that is not hearsay I think it should be emphasized.--Factchk (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When I took photographs at Uggs-N-Ruggs Bruce showed me copies of a number of magazine articles and adverts from magazines dated in the 1960's printed in both Australia and the US, these were presented in the Californian case but were dismissed by the judge as antidotal evidence of the existance of Ugg boots and the term prior to Stedmans registering the trademark. Its all in the transcripts of the Californian case, I'll contact Bruce and see if I can get copies of the adds but obviously I cant post the copies as that would be a copyright violation. Gnangarra 03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Gnangarra, I think you mean "anecdotal" and what you're suggesting here is forbidden by WP:NOR. Sorry mate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah anecdotal, Actually photographs are by design OR and therefore exempt to the terms of WP:NOR, putting a photo of an advert from the 1960's under a fair use claim would be acceptable. Gnangarra 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be fair use to reproduce a low-resolution copy of such images for Wikipedia. And depending on the magazines' publication dates copyright may have expired anyway. Donama (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed here. Acording to the Syney Morning Herald article, the point of this discussion, Shane Stedman claimed to have a. Invented Ugg boots in 1971 and b. to have coined the term Ugg boots. The weight of evidence proves that Ugg boots were in existence, at least in the 1960s and were called Ugg boots at least by the 1960s. The Wall Street Journal quote from Douglas Otto, Chairman of Deckers admits that they were in USA surf magazines in 1970 (8 years before Brian Smith filed his trademark and claimed that the word Ugg had no significance) and that they were on Australian beaches in the 1960s. Bottom line, Shane Stedman lied in his article that he invented "ugg boots" and coined the term in 1971. Additionally, the trademark "Ugh-boots" was an Australian trademark only and has nothing to do with the USA trademarks as they are national. The genericness of a term in Australia has nothing to do with the meaning of a term in the USA however, Smith and Otto have both admitted that Ugg was used in the USA prior to their claim of first use. --Illume1999 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

All of this is very premature, since the case has not been decided. It's ridiculous to give mere allegations so much weight, when the Dutch case has not only been decided, but is binding law throughout much of Europe. If you insist on including this, it should not only occupy less space, but also less prominent space -- below the section on the Dutch case. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The facts of the Dutch case were very different to recent (Luda) and current USA cases, Emu and Bearpaw. This link should be added and a mention of the trade dress complaint which inlcuded the "Classic" style. Deckers Outdoor Corporation Vs Romeo & Juliette http://fkks.com/docs/Complaint--Deckers.pdf --Illume1999 (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances I wouldn't object, but we're really starting to descend into minutiae here. This is an encyclopedia article. It's supposed to be short and concise: a summary of a larger body of facts, culled from several different (cited and preferably linked) sources that can provide a lot more facts that are not contained here. It's not supposed to be an exhaustive list of every minor fact from every court case that ever involved the word "ugg." And it appears that the link is from a primary source. I have no objection as long as the use of primary sources is extremely limited. We should focus on secondary sources wherever possible. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with P&W cases should be used with caution, drawing facts from case documents can be original research. While SMH is generally a reliable source and Stedman's claim has been reported if its part of a court case focusing on the detail of the claim should be left to the courts to decide its authenticity and veracity not us. As he made a claim to origin its a significant alternative POV, especially from someone who has an acknowledged part in the history of Ugg Boots it should included. Gnangarra 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

'Emergence as a fashion trend'

Donama, if you can show that other brands enjoyed a 1,471 percent increase in sales over the same 13-year period, then I concede the point. Otherwise, it's UGG brand boots that emerged as a fashion trend. Believe it or not, fashion trends can center around a particular brand, such as Swatch watches and Calvin Klein jeans. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Many companies have been growing at this rate or above this rate. http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/news/business/2007/02/16/ddn021707warmbat.html --Illume1999 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work Illume, but here's what the source says about actual recorded sales (everything else is just a sales projection, perhaps too optimistic):

Despite entering the market late in the year, the company beat its projected fourth-quarter revenue of $125,000 by nearly $375,000, Barclay said.

They beat their projected revenue by 300 percent -- well that's splendid, but it doesn't compare any previous recorded sales figures -- just projections. And it's a relaunch of an established brand, with an established sales network and an established customer base. What we may be looking at here is the following process: (A) marketing department offers a conservative sales projection for the fourth quarter, (B) they're very successful and they beat that sales projection by 300 percent but (C) they now offer another sales projection that may be overcompensating, and is a little too optimistic. There's simply no statement of any previous sales figures for comparison -- just projections. Can you come up with some previous sales figures for Warmbat, or a before-and-after comparison of actual sales (not projections) for any other company? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The wrong discussion is going on here. May I gently remind that this article is not about the UGG brand. We have established that time and time again. It is about ugg boots in the generic sense. Therefore my changes to this particular bit of the article have been to try and place this information about the UGG brand in context to the whole article. Cheers, Donama (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Donama, UGG may have the monopoly on the name outside of Australia but not the look. There are many companies all showing huge growth despite not being able to reffer to their products as "Ugg boots". I have seen an article (in print but not online)about Warmbat which did in deed exceed the projections of $5,000,000 for 2007 and then went up another 800% in 2008. Bearpaw are bigger and have gone from zero to $50,000,000 in about 5 years. EMU would appear to the the second biggest and are growing very quickly. Just google the chats and blogs to see the growing list of loyal fans for these other brands. Sure, Deckers have been the ones to put sheepskin boots on the scene but they do have competition and today, its other brands that are playing catch up and taking market share at a faster % than Deckers.--Illume1999 (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, put up some links to reliable sources (not chats and blogs) and we'll do this in the time-honored manner. If ugg boots (generic term) are emerging as a fashion trend, and not merely UGG boots (brand name), then there must be some sales figures from these other companies in print somewhere on the Internet to support the claim. And surely they'll show the same explosive rate of growth as UGG brand boots — or at least something in the same ballpark. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a very valid discussion. If the topic of this portion of the article is supposed to be about the explosion in popularity for sheepskin boots then the UGG brand's unique experience has to be validated. I think its also very telling that the very example that was offered was Warmbat. The sentence in question discusses popularity in the 90s. Warmbat wasn't founded until 2003 and the figures that were offered are from 2006. Moreover, no where in the article did the author call Warmbat products "uggs.” Instead the author and Warmbat uses the universal generic term “sheepskin boots.” The use of the word “UGG” in the article refers directly to the Deckers brand. The Warmbat success while using the generic term “sheepskin boot” contradicts the statement earlier made by the McDougals that the use of “UGG” was essential to the ongoing success of a company.--Factchk (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be on to something here. It underscores the vastly different sales histories, and differences in usage of the term, between Australia and the United States. I was hoping that Illume1999 could come up with some solid sales figures from a reliable source, but "I read about it in some blog" or "They were talking about it on an anonymous talkboard" doesn't satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. But I do believe it would be fair (and in fact, would be a valuable improvement to the article) to include growth in sales from other brands, if only we can find some reliable sources for them. Anyone? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix, please don't misquote me here. I clearly stated that I had seen the article on Warmbat in print but not online. This was a feature on sheepskin boots in a footwear industry magazine where the editor interviewed several companies (see "Footwear Intelligence - June 2008 page 36). My reference to online blogs was only to state the popularity of other brands that are growing very quickly as well.

As most of these other brands are privately owned, it is difficult to get numbers compared to public companies like Deckers. This article, if you do the math, actually puts Bearpaw at $100,000,000 in just 5 years. http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/07/05/story10.html

Factchk, you have hit the nail on the head as its "sheepskin boots" that are growing in popularity with Deckers the undeniable market leader however, Deckers didn't take off until 2003/ 2004 either and its the mid to late 2000s that "sheepskin boots" emerged as a fashion trend, not the 1990s. This page "ugg boots" or what they are called in Australia, is not at all fair to the much larger "sheepskin boot" companies outside of Australia and therefore, a main landing page needs to be created for the generic name "Sheepskin boots" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheepskin_boots).

One can see why the little cottage industry in Australia wants to continue to call them ugg boots but their sales don't amount to much and they cannot sell outside of Australia, so why devote so much to just .1% of the worlds population and around 1% of sheepskin boot sales?

The landing page should be "sheepskin boots" with a link to Deckers "UGG brand" and "ugg boots in Australia". Until this happens, there is not a generic page on Wikipedia for this multi billion dollar footwear trend or the history of "Sheepskin boots" and that makes no sense at all.

---Illume1999 (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current article? Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything, so there should be no undue emphasis placed on a big company or on a cottage industry. This article is about ugg boots, not the company and its products. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Johnuniq, the generic term "Sheepskin boots" is currently being redirected to the "ugg boots" page which is either: a. what they are called in Australia or b. a single companies trademarked name. This is wrong and as you say " Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything, so there should be no undue emphasis placed on a big company or on a cottage industry".

The "model" for the "Sheepskin boots" page should be like the page for "Jeans". This page is generic, It shows the main companies, it shows a history and it shows a list the different names in different countries.--Illume1999 (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I endorse renaming the article “Sheepskin Boots” for all the reasons stated by Illume and Phoenix. I think this is a valid solution because it accurately uses the international generic term for a style of boots. We wouldn’t have to worry about different sides of the trademark dispute fighting their battle on Wikipedia. It allows the page to cover every angle of the story in an accurate and unbiased manner.--Factchk (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we need this change as an industrial strength disambiguation, and agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a battleground per WP:BATTLE. In Australia and New Zealand, all brands are called "ugg boots," generic term. Elsewhere, all brands seem to be called "sheepskin boots," with the brand name "UGG boots" trademarked and with Deckers zealously defending its trademark rights, but with "UGGs" entering the general lexicon much like Coke or Levis or Zippo. It's recognized as being derived from a brand name. Currently "Sheepskin boots" redirects here. Perhaps the name of this article should be "Sheepskin boots" with links to "UGG Australia" and any other brands deemed notable enough to have their own articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Except they are not sheepskin booots they are Ugg boots always have been, to rename the article would a violation of WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 23:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose renaming it. As discussed before, not all sheepskin boots are ugg boots, and ugg boots, as a name and style, have considerable cultural significance in their country of origin (Australia), which should be respected. - Bilby (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it violates WP:NPOV to rename the article. If anything “Sheepskin Boots” is more neutral because it is the designation used by the majority of manufacturers.--Factchk (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't see how it violates NPOV to have an article that covers both the style of boots and acknowledges the existence of the brand with the same name, and also to have an article specifically about the brand. It isn't that hard to have teh articles coexist, especially given how much of this article is devoted to Deckers as it stands. - Bilby (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Uggs boots is what they have been called in their country origin well before Deckers came into the equation where as Sheep skin boots was forced to be used after Deckers started trying to take control of the term. To rename the article would be a violation of WP:NPOV because it would be forcing a POV that is clearly in dispute, and continues to be in dispute despite the ruling that ugg boots is generic term. Gnangarra 06:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Gnangarra, no one has established that Australian sheepskin boots have always been called “Ugg” or that it has cultural significance prior to sales taking off in the 2003-2005 timeframe. The Ugg/Ugh name began as Shane Stedman’s trademark. The earliest documented evidence that has been given for use by other manufactures is in the 1970s or later. If UGH/UGG had cultural significance, IP Australia would not have allowed Stedman’s trademark in 1971.

We could continue to argue about this but we would just end up right back here where we started. Using an internationally neutral generic term for this article is the best way to avoid the conflict we have been experiencing for years.Factchk (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously missed this then: [4]; also, the stamp issue it references can be verified here [5]. Note that the book in question is neutral (being a book about culturally significant clothing, not a corporate advertising vehicle) and is published by a well regarded publishing house (Penguin). Also please note that, while ug boots may be sheepskin boots, not all sheepskin boots are produced in the generic ug boot style. To move this article to "sheepskin boots" would be as absurd as to move the Gramophone record article to Sound recording and reproduction. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Large doses of mythology and ethnocentrism always seem to accompany descriptions of this boot style, particularly in the Chamber of Commerce style prose we find here, at the bottom of the page. [6] I don't believe anyone is disputing the fact that the boot style originated in Australia. I think both concerns can be addressed by calling this article "Sheepskin boots," and devoting most of the article mainspace to ugg boots (and UGG boots), distinguishing those from other types of sheepskin boots. By the way, a book reporting what a magazine has said makes it a tertiary source. We try to focus on the use of secondary sources here. I don't believe "The Way We Wore" can be used as a reliable source here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting, as has been mentioned before, that while we can debate whether or not all ugg boots are made of sheepskin (synthetic ugg boots being open to question), it is clear that not all sheepskin boots are ugg boots. Perhaps there is a case for a general sheepskin boots article, but if so that doesn't deny the value of a separate article about what appears to be the most popular style of sheepskin boot, using the name given to it in the country of origin. Especially given that this article does not, and has never, denied that the term relates to both a generic style and a specific brand. - Bilby (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect the trouble is that the current title tends to legitimize one side in the content dispute (representing 0.1 percent of the world population) and delegitimize the other side (respresenting current trademark laws for over 99 percent of the world population). The English Wikipedia takes great care to avoid being "America centric," despite the fact that over 70 percent of the world's people who speak English at home live in the United States. We also need to avoid being "Australia centric." Titling this article "Sheepskin boots" seeks a middle ground. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a middle ground - it is both incorrect (not all sheepskin boots are ugg boots), and marginalises the perspective of the country of origin where they have special significance. That's not a middle ground. - Bilby (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do ugg boots really have "special significance" or tradition, in the same way that the game of baseball has special significance in the United States? The president throws out the first pitch for every season of Major League Baseball, but doesn't engage in any similar ceremony for such sports as football, basketball or hockey. Baseball is "America's pastime." Can you point to a similar moment of ceremony or broad recognition for ugg boots in Australia? No, I don't believe you can. The claim of "special significance" only arose after an American company started making hundreds of millions of dollars marketing them worldwide. Until then they were nothing to be proud of, and something that surfers and teenaged girls tossed under their beds the moment warm weather arrived. Correct? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The special significance emerged over a number of years in which Deckers had nothing to do with Australia - ugg boots have never been a fashion item in Australia as they were in the rest of the world. Their significance was similar to cowboy boots in the US, I suspect - something that was considered uniquely Australian, but just a little cringe-worthy, leading to humour when it emerged that they were fashionable overseas. It wasn't connected with Deckers' success, as that emerged later, long after they were a household name in Australia. - Bilby (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I have never suggested that the "Ugg boots" page or the "UGG Australian" page be renamed. I am simply pointing out that the generic name that is currently used in just about everywhere outside of Australia is "Sheepskin boots" and to have sheepskin boots redirected to "Ugg boots" is not logical and is not the same thing.

I feel that the "Ugg boots" page is very important and as the origin of both Ugg boots generically and the UGG brand, I think it deserves a separate page. The history and trademark issues are facinating and should remain an important part of both pages.

I understand that the classic style that we see on the high streets and on the telly just about every day originated from Australia. But here in the UK they are either sheepskin boots from the UGG company (UGG Boots) or they are sheepskin boots. I see that this is indeed the case all through Europe and the USA and probably just about everywhere outside of Australia and New Zealand.

Again, I feel that the main heading for "sheepskin boots" should reference Deckers and their UGG brand as they are the major worldwidide players. It should reference sheepskin boots today and the unique part that Australia has played in the the worlds biggest selling style of sheepskin boots (possibly any boot?). It should mention that they are known in Australian and New Zealand as "ugg, ug or ugh boots" and this should link to the "ugg boot page" as that is really a very important section with its own unique history.

I do understand that there are different types of sheepskin boots and this would be a very good way to clarify the current trends and the differences between sheepskin boots and sheepskin lined boots (Bearpaw etc). It would also eliminate the synthetics that do not use sheepskin at all which seems to be important to the Australian Sheepskin Association.

My Grandchildren in the USA refer to other sheepskin boots as "Fuggs" or fake uggs. Wouldnt a section like sheepskin boots explaining the history is a less confusing manner help people understand that Decker's are a brand, not a style? Wouldn't this section help the smaller Australian companies compete in the sheepskin boots market, EMU seem to have done very well without having to call them UGG boots.

This is a global encyclopedia and needs a global theme. As most of the sheepskin boots are sold outside Australia and UGG is a trademark in over a hundred countries, the style needs a global, generic name and the name used by just about every company outside of Australia is "Sheepskin boots". This may be hard for some of the Australian editors here but its a fact and that's what this is all about, the facts.--Illume1999 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're trying to head. But to clarify - sheepskin boots refers to a large variety of different styles of boots, including those made by the Inuit, some of which match the ugg boot style, but many of which do not. There is no other name to denote the style than "ugg" or which serves to differentiate the style from other types of (completely unrelated) sheepskin boots. - Bilby (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, I think this is already being addressed:

UGG can refer to: Ugg boots, a style of sheepskin boot that originated in Australia and New Zealand and

Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs)[1] are unisex sheepskin boots, made of twin-faced sheepskin with fleece on the inside and with a tanned outer surface, often with a synthetic sole.

Both current references here show them as a "Style" not a "Category" and both references state that they are indeed "Sheepskin boots" I have in the new section below suggested that this unique style is actually an Australian Sheepskin Boot (also known in Australian and New Zealand as an Ugg boot).

I think this makes perfect sense to those of us who are outside of this business.--Illume1999 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Again - just keep in mind that ugg boots may be a type of sheepskin boot, but ugg boots are not the only type of sheepskin boot. Thus "Australian sheepskin boots" includes ugg boots, but it also describes a category of things which may also include things which are not ugg boots. - Bilby (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, I have googled australian sheepskin boots and also sheepskin boots and all I can see is the style in question. Can you share a more specific finding?--Illume1999 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Googling will show the most common version on the web. Look into, for example, Inuit boots and other styles worn historically. The main features of ugg boots are the hides tanned to retain the wool, and the wool on the inside of the boot with a rubber sole. Historically you'll get sheepskin leather without the wool, boots with the wool on the outside (or partially on the outside), and other approaches to the sole. Then, of course, you'll have things such as sheepskin slippers, overboots, and footmuffs. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that the major manufacturers, and not just UGG, use the term "sheepskin boots" to describe this style is enough. I noticed many Australian based companies also using this term. One has now commented on the sheepskin boots discussion page. It seems like we have a pretty board consensus that they are only called ugg boots in Australia and everywhere else "sheepskin boots" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheepskin_boots Illume1999 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Googling what a joke you realise that the internet as a source is only as old as Deckers court cases. If you want to know about Uggs you'll have to get off your ass and spend time looking at real pieces of paper in archives right across this country. Personal experience from 1985 until 1990 I drove tour coaches in Perth Western Australia every friday I did a tour that started in Perth went out through the western suburbs to Fremantle, it went to a place called Eagle Wools where the passengers where shown Ugg boots being made and where they could then buy a pair from there we went down to a place called the Gumnut factory it also sold Ugg boots but these were made in Gingin. I also did a tour to the Pinicles we stopped at the Gingin factory for morning tea/afternoon tea depending, again the passengers were shown Ugg being made. 1975 year 6 camp at Toodyay we went to a tannery near Northam there we were shown Ugg boots being made, in fact I brought my first pair on that camp. All of this was before the internet, before Deckers they have never been called anything other than Ugg boots until deckers started its legal actions against Australian companies c2000. Sheepskin boots are not Ugg boot never have been until Deckers court cases some of which they've lost, Australian manfacturers have been forced to use the term to trade outside of Australia, if Ugg boots werent anything but Australian Deckers wouldnt need to use the brand UGG Australia they could call what they are UGG China and UGG USA there is no denying that ugg boots are anything but an Australian style that style has always been called Ugg boots. Gnangarra 00:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gnangarra I'm sorry to say this again but all of your personal experiences took place post 1971. Wikipedia is all about verifiable secondary sources not personal opinion and not emotional attachment. Furthermore you stated that Deckers has lost some court cases implying several when in fact they've only lost one (2006) and that for non-usage not because of generic. If you cannot approach this issue with an open mind then perhaps you should edit other articles. --Factchk (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Factchk Deckers has lost more than one case in Australia in fact its most recent loss, which its still persuing is that Ugg Australia is a long standing brand of another company. I have always been open minded in discusions about this articles contents including being inclusive of Deckers contributions and achievements. I continue to work with all editors within the policies of Wikipedia including WP:NPOV WP:OR and WP:COI. When I express personal experiences or opinion I clearly state it, highlight it prior so as to ensure that everybody is clearly aware of the differences this is done as a means of enabling discussion/understanding I have never added such content to the article and never would. Where I have had contact with Ugg boot manufacturers to take photographs I clearly indicate such contact, I also refrain from making major cahnges to the article without first discussing it. What is very clear here is that such honesty is not being exercised by all editors, some of whom very clearly have something to gain from how and what is written about Ugg boots. Gnangarra 00:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Illume1999, just quickly: I'm not denying that ugg boots have to be referred to as sheepskin boots outside of Australia and New Zealand. What I'm saying, though, is that "sheepskin boots" encompasses a lot of different styles of boot, only one of which is the ugg boot style, and there is no name other than ugg boat which properly defines that particular style of footware. Thus your sheepskin boot article needs to encompass more than one style, and can't rely on "sheepskin boots" as a synonym for ugg boot. - Bilby (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, I think the page title should remain "Sheepskin boots" but the title can be "Australian Sheepskin boots" and should have a good picture of the classic style at the top so that there is no confusion. This would then be the same model as "Australian work boots "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_work_boot. Does anyone have a good picture of a classic. The one an the ugg boot page is quite ugly and that design is not as common as the true classic that is the big seller. --Illume1999 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, its an interesting conundrum as to how to separate what we would think of as the Aussie surfer boot from sheepskin shoes worn since time immemorial. I think that the offer of Australian Sheepskin Boots is the most clear international generic term. I think it separates the Aussie surf style sheepskin boot from Inuit boots, caveman boots etc. I think we can resolve this by being constructive. I don't have a problem with the idea of the style being called an "ugg" as a slang term in today's Australia and I think there can be a proper section on its usage in Australia and New Zealand. To give an example Soft drinks are called "Soda" or "Pop" or “Coke” in different places but the Wikipedia page is entitled Soft drinks.--Factchk (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an easy way of distinguishing between "Australian surfer boots" and generic sheepskin boots. You call them by their name in their country of origin, which is the only term that distinguishes them from other sheepskin boots - ugg boots. - Bilby (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

POVFORK

This section contains the POVFORK proposal by Illume1999, Gnangarra 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gnangarra, nothing could be further from the truth. It is not fair to give Decker all the publicity and keep calling them Ugg boots which as we have all confirmed is Australian "slang" for "sheepskin boots". In 99% of the world Ugg is trademarked and means only one company thus "a monopoly". This is a global encyclopedia and it needs to be referenced globally.

The facts are simple, Deckers have trademarks for UGG and every major company reffers to this style as ":Sheepskin boots".

I have never suggested replacing the very important Australian section or any of that history. The generic, global category just needed to be created and this puts all the companies on a level playing field and just features the style "globally".

I can tell that your "emotionally" involved here but Deckers won the war over UGG and they grow and grow. Other companies outside of Australia have moved on and they too, grow and grow.

The sheepskin page is fair and balanced, has wide general consensus here and should just remain addressing the style in general. Specific information about the unique Australian history and any trademark events are all yours. I hope you see this as just a general category page and if you look at the "Australian Work boots" page you will see that I have tried to just be very unbiased and very factual. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

of course you havent replaced any of that history its just that what you've written ommitts all of it and is a reflection of history according to Deckers. As for any the Sheepskin article thats at AFD. Gnangarra 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please join me to make that page for the global term "sheepskin boots" as accurate as possible. If you read my notes, I too disagree with the Shane Stedman history (or proporganda) above and have pointed out that the founder of UGG and Deckers both have been quoted saying that they were in excistange prior to 1971 and they were also called ug boots....I get it. I am not trying to help Deckers or anyone for that matter, I am just pointing out that they cannot be called Ugg boots outside of Australia and the overwhelming terms used, even by Australian companies, is sheepskin boots. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with "sheepskin boots" as the title? It is descriptive of a style of boot - and under it can fall all the brands that are made of sheepskin. Why would you delete a desciptive term that is so apt? We could argue forever about whether or not a given manufacturer can label there boots "UGG" but your boots are either made of sheepskin or are not. This is fair all around - I vote we keep the "Sheepskin Boots" article done by Illume. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Middlemarch. Can you please add your support to the sheepskin boots page. Gnangarra has asked for it to be deleted citing that it is an attempt to change a court case. I hardly think that this user edited platform amounts to "legal evidence" and as I have said repeatedly, I am not trying to rewrite anything, I am just trying to get the very obvious category up and have modeled it on "many" current Wikipedia pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneaker_(footwear) is another good one everyone. It is clean, factual and mentions other names in different countries and does not include a trademark or a geographic only, "slang" name in the title. I can understand the Australians but am not wating to change that page or its history. The history outside of Australia "has" changed, and with millions of references of this style of boots referred to as "sheepskin boots", I feel this is correct. --Illume1999 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Australian Sheepskin Boots

Australian Sheepskin boots today are one of the most popular trends of casual footwear and over the last decade, global sales for sheepskin boots have grown exponentially. One particular style that originated in Australia and is attributed to the Australian Surfing culture is the “Classic” Australian sheepskin boot (also known in Australia and New Zealand as ugg boots. The UGG brand is largely attributed to the dramatic increase in popularity and has successfully won over celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey who has featured the UGG brand sheepskin boots one of her favorite things for the last 5 years. Some other popular sheepskin boot brands are EMU, Koolaburra, Warmbat, Aussie Dogs, Green Lizard Australia, Love from Australia, Koalabi, Ausiie Boots Australia, Shepherd, Jumbuck, Overland, Shoo Republic, Seekin, Celtic, Morlands and Mou.

History

Not long after Australia was founded by the British, sheep were introduced and sheep farming for wool, meat and the byproduct “sheepskin” became an integral part in Australia’s economy. Australia today remains the Worlds largest producer of wool and sheepskin and has an estimated 120 million sheep. (1) Possibly due to the vast availability of sheepskin, the Australian Shearer’s may have been the first to make some form of Australian sheepskin boots however, its the “Classic Style”, believed to have first appeared in the Australian surfing culture in the 1960s that spread throughout Australia, New Zealand and eventually the USA . One of the first major manufacturers of sheepskin boots in Australia was Shane Stedman who in 1971 began mass producing the Classic style of Australian sheepskin boots.

In 1978, Australian Surfer, Brian Smith settled in the USA and began selling sheepskin boots from Australia. He called his new company Ugg Holdings, Inc and was eventually bought out by the US public company, Deckers Outdoor Corporation in 1995.In 1996, Deckers trademarked the name UGG and have since that time increased their sales dramatically and have been largely attributed to making today’s style of sheepskin boots so universally popular. The trademark of UGG has caused a lot of contention as it is the generic “slang” name for the style in Australia and New Zealand and there have been several legal issues over the use of the name while Deckers argue that it is their trademarked brand and various Australian manufacturers argue that it is the generic name for this style of boots and should not have been trademarked.

Design

The most common style of Sheepskin boots are made from sheepskins with fleece attached. The fleece is tanned into the leather and the boot is assembled with the fleece on the inside. The soles of the boots are commonly made from EVA, and the stitching is often prominent on the outside of the boot. The original design was a pull-on boot in natural (undyed) tan sheepskin, about 10 inches (25 cm) in height, with rounded, almost shapeless uppers; this is now described as the "classic" design. Today they come in a variety of colours, and styles They are available in both pull-on and lace-up varieties and their height can range from just above the ankle to above the knee.[21] Sheepskin boots often have a synthetic sole, although this is not universal. The natural insulative properties of sheepskin gives thermostatic properties to the boots: the thick fleecy fibers on the inner part of the boots wick moisture and allow air to circulate, keeping the feet at body temperature.[20] Sheepskin boots are able to keep feet warm in relatively cold weather even if they are worn without socks.[citation needed]

Cheaper Versions

Some variations of Australian sheepskin boots have also been made by combining leather and sheepskin lining which is a much cheaper process and usually sell for much less than pure sheepskin boots. The Bearpaw Company uses this process exclusively on all of their sheepskin boots. There are also synthetic boots. Although derided as "fake" by some in the industry,[23] their lower price made them appealing to large retail chains such as Wall-Mart

Foot Problems

In 2009 American podiatrist Ed Chairman raised concern that the regular wearing of Sheepskin boots by UGG and other manufacturers could be deleterious to foot health due to the lack of arch support.[25] Some companies have improved their design and have added arch support and other advanced features to their products

References

(1) http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/agriculture/sheep-wool/index.html

Comments

• one discussion one place at one time close all others Gnangarra 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What your doing here is called a WP:POVFORK and such actions can result in you being blocked for Dsruption Gnangarra 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Illume1999 for rewritting history according to wishes of Deckers. Gnangarra 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gnangarra, the Sheepskin Boot until recently page redirected to Ugg boots. There was no page to edit. Illume has posed a simple, elegant, and respectful solution to ongoing battle on this talk page. Illume has appealed to us, his fellow editors, to help writing this page and there is no need to respond with threats and scorn.--Factchk (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help on new links on ugg boots page. #37 & 38--Illume1999 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the Today Tonight reference. The other I removed, as the material it was being used to reference was incorrectly worded (the source only said that ugg boots were invented in Geelong, not that EMU invented them), and was controversial enough that relying on a primary source seemed problematic. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

sheepskin boots page was approved --Illume1999 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of 1920s British Flying boots

As most editors here agree this page is just for this style (just in Australia I maintain), I have gone ahead and removed the "Fug" reference as it has absolutely nothing to do with the style and the name and has no place in the history of this style. The definition is: Fug-boots Vulgar British term for the leather, thigh-length boots that pilots sometimes wore.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/help/glossary.php?pageNum_glossary=6&totalRows_glossary=86

Is is now covered on the new sheepskin boots section although this still needs to be edited in such a way to show the various sheepskin boots style throughout history.--Illume1999 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The connection comes from some of the commentary on uggs, such as:

"The Australian ugg boot traces its origins back to at least World War I when pilots were pictured wearing their fleece-lined 'fug boots' presumably flying ugg boots." ("What's in a name?" (Tuesday, March 9, 2004) Central Coast Express)

Or from South China News, in relation to ugg boots: "Their origins go back to the first world war, when Australian fighter pilots wore thick sheepskin boots known as fug boots.". Others seem to have drawn a connection, hence the inclusion here. - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, this is a myth, just sourced content is what you have just told me. I have provided links showing wide use of this and why they were called "fugs". I too have "drawn a connection" to many issues here but if I cannot provide a "source", my edits are all being removed. "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander" I say. --Illume1999 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - those are sources. Both are quotes from the articles. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure this helps Australian manufacturers with the argument however, we have agreed upon "proof" here, not "presumably flying ugg boots" or "Others seem to have drawn a connection". This is an encyclopedia, lets keep to the facts and not commercially influenced opinions. --Illume1999 (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Several newspaper articles and a documentary have specifically made the conection (not watered down by "presumably" or "others have") so it needs to be included. Wayne (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete contradiction to the current content and therefore here say "In regard to naming, it appears that ugg boots, ugh boots and ug boots have been used as generic terms for sheepskin boots in Australia and New Zealand since at least the 1970s,[1][7] although individual accounts have suggested that the terms (or variations thereof) were employed earlier."

To imply that Australian pilots in the 1920s named their sheepskin boots "fug boots" after Australian Ugg boots, some 50 years before it became popular use in Australia is just not a credible argument. Whats more, the definition of our RAF pilots in Brittain for "Fug boots" has nothing to do with Australia (see links above). Also see: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-wwi-aviation/19311-fug-boots.html--Illume1999 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-wwi-aviation/19311-fug-boots.html is an unedited, unreviewed, open forumn it offers nothing of authority its clearly fail WP:RS, where as several WP:RS do specifically state that pilots in WWI used the term FUG Gnangarra 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The mentions didn't say the name came from the flying boots but that the modern boots did and the name may have evolved from fug to become a generic term. What "fug" actually meant is irrelevant. Wayne (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Some brief teference to the term fug should probably be made, since, as the sources Bilby pointed to show, the term and concept of uggs evolved at least in part from the term and concept of fug boots. Donama (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be better then to reference these in the origin of the name instead of the history. It is extremely unlikely that Australian shearers or surfers were referencing 1920s British fighter pilots when making or naming these boots. The way it was previously written was implying that ugg boots in Australian were first worn by RAF pilots which we have I think concluded was not the case. It could then be written as "One theory in the origin of the name was that it derived from the 1920s British fighter pilots who wore sheepskin boots called Fug boots". Having said this, it seems like a myth to me and the main history of the British Fug boots belongs in the sheepskin boot section. --Illume1999 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Flying Ugg Boot" thing is a myth. There were boots worn by RFC flyers called "fugs", they were developed on the Western Front by an RFC ace, Lanoe Hawker, in 1915.[7] There couldn't have been any Aussie influence because there were no Aussie flyers in Europe until 1916.--Factchk (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added it back, but, per your suggestion, removed the reference to "flying ugg boots". I also find it unlikely that fug boots were named after ugg boots, as it is more likely that it went in the other direction, but we're surmising in both cases. As an aside, while the AFC didn't enter the war until 1916, there were Australians in the RFC prior to that - the delay in founding the AFC led some Australians to travel to Britain in order to sign up there. For example, Robert Little and Roderic Dallas were both flying for the RFC prior to the AFC's involvement. - Bilby (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I hadn't heard about the Aussie RFC aces. I'll have to check that out, thank you!--Factchk (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Further improvement

So where do we go from here? How can we further improve this article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is directed to Donama, who has been reverting a complex edit of mine that contains several improvements. Here are the sentences she is trying to preserve, in italics, followed by my explanation of why they're flawed:

1. Ugg boots (sometimes called uggs) are unisex sheepskin boots ... Any particular reason why they can't be called a "style of sheepskin boots"? Are you really arguing that they are not defined as a "style of sheepskin boots" in any of the reliable sources we've cited, Donama?
2. by 1933 ugg boots were being manufactured by Blue Mountains Ugg Boots, and Mortels Sheepskin Factory were making the boots from the late 1950s. There seems to be absolutely no claim, in any of the reliable sources, that the term "ugg" even existed before 1958. So in 1933, they were called "sheepskin boots" even in Australia. Also, the Mortels Sheepskin Factory is singular. If the word had been "factories," it would be plural. Therefore the word "was" is appropriate, and the word "were" is grammatically incorrect.
3. The Mortel Skeepskin Factory has been making ugg boots since 1958, with Frank Mortel claiming he named them "ugg boots" after his wife commented that the first pair he made were "ugly." The first half of this sentence is redundant and therefore should be removed. See earlier reference to the start of production in the late 1950s, in the preceding paragraph.
4. ... with celebrities such as Kate Hudson, Sarah Jessica Parker and Pamela Anderson wearing the boots. I'm trying to add a mention about Oprah Winfrey featuring UGG brand boots on her talk show, and the product placements. Donama claims that this is "not supported by the citations." The sources are not online and so I can't easily prove this point. So I'll add a couple of citations to reliable sources online. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with points #1 and #2. As to point #4, I'm simply against modifying content that's already sourced without reference to the source, because the citation remains and one assumes the new content is supported, when in fact it's not. I've no problem with the content itself, just the sourcing. As to point #3, I think the date context is important and since it's in the Hansard record we should include it. Donama (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As to another change you made in the lead regarding Blue Mountains Ugg Boots, you are changing this from "ugg boots" to "sheepskin boots" when clearly this is a reference to the ugg style, even though there may not be solid proof that was their designation in 1933. The fact remains this is what is called today, as evidenced by company name "Blue Mountain Ugg Boots". Donama (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some links for celebs wearing UGG Australia and an endorsement from Ohrah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_Helen http://www.igotuggs.com/2009/01/sarah-jessica-parker-in-three-pair-of.html (this site has hundreds of celebs wearing UGG Australia) http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Oprahs-Ultimate-Favorite-Things-2010/4

According to this, Blue Mountain have only been trading using this name since 2000. Does anyone know what they were "really" called in 1933? http://www.abr.business.gov.au/(cxycygiv5i0402zicfonymms)/abnDetails.aspx?History=True&abn=79001297329&ResultListURL= --Illume1999 (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

First here are two credible secondary sources about the importance of Oprah to the popularity of Australian sheepskin boots. [8][9] Second, its fairly obvious that style of sheepskin boots is appropriate since many have been contending that this article is devoted to a style. To say “sheepskin boots” implies that this article applies to all sheepskin boots that happen to be unisex. Thirdly, it appears that we have 3 different claimants to coining the term, Blue Mountains, Mortel and Uggs-N-Rugs. How can anyone make sense of this?--Factchk (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we have at least 6 in total on the naming of Ugg boots if you include the recent claim about the cartoon character "Ugh", Koolaburra had a whole story that I found online about Cockneys and how the boots "ug'ed" your feet and of course Shane Stedman claims to have coined the claim too. If the Australian Sheepskin Association have old surf magazines as they claim, why don't they scan and put them on their site so we can get some accurate information, not just folk law. As some of the editors here are obviously involved, that should be a very quick and easy task.

After my brief input here and experiencing the absolute "tunnel vision" from the Australian editors it seems more and more apparent that Shane Stedman may have indeed coined the term as it is the only "proof" that we can go on other than just "conflicting claims" that are not backed up by any evidence, not even by the sheepskin association.

Additionally, I found this quote in a recent edit on ugg boots interesting "blue mountains ugg boots were still producing "ugg boots" in 1933 even if there's not proof that was their designation at the time; this is what they are called today, as evidenced by company name". This would seem to indicate that what they are called today, in 99% of the world, would be the generic name "Sheepskin boots" as almost every reference to ugg boots is either referring to the brand "UGG" that has been compared to "Apple" in their growth and brand recognition or to aggressive Australian companies that are trying to get their share of the ever growing marketplace, by not acknowledging Deckers trademarks, which is unfortunately illegal.

Why cant the Wikipedia community acknowledge this simple fact and give the Australians a "Factual" history and a mention that they are generic in Australia but NOW called sheepskin boots, by all major manufacturer, Australian exporters, retailers and consumers everywhere else? --Illume1999 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What belies these conflicting claims is that no one opposed Shane Stedman’s trademark in 1971. According to the Fact sheet issued by IP Australia in 2006, all trademarks go through examination and an opposition phase where anyone can file an objection.[10] The examiner allowed it and no opposition was voiced. In 2006, IP Australia stated that there was nothing wrong with the mark at the time and that it was duly allowed to be registered. Obviously, it was not generic at the time.

Secondly, it doesn’t really matter who invented the word be it Stedman or McDougall or Mortel. The question is what does the word mean to the majority of consumes in a particular country. There are several independent Australian companies that have and continue to use UGG as part of their trade marks. What I’ve always questioned is when it came into wide spread use by the Australian public. There is very little dated documented evidence of UGG or UGH before Stedman’s trade mark, and there is no documented evidence of widespread use of the term until well after Stedman’s trade mark. The first dictionary listing was in the 1980’s.--Factchk (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to eliminate some of these unproven myths and just stick to the facts. It looks like the original classic style sheepskin boots have been in Australia for some time and were never patented. As for the name, all we have seen so far are articles or interviews about what someone "said" or an "assumption" that because they are called ugg boots today, then he was making ugg boots back in 1933... Can anyone provide a link to anything that is a published image or article that calls them ugg, ugh or ug prior to Stedmans trademark? --Illume1999 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What we report is what the sources say, as a general rule, not what we can research ourselves. We don't need to conduct the research and find the advertising - we just need to rely on reliable sources for the content. The sources provide these different accounts, and thus we reflect that. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How can these people be "reliable sources" when they have an agenda? The Mortels selling on ebay and sales going crazy and then having to stop because of the name they are using. Same for Uggs-n-rugs and Blue mountain. All of the "reliable sources" have a financial interest in these quotes and this article. And how can they all invent the same thing at different time and place? Why cant they produce any documentation?--Illume1999 (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of the Mortels as a reliable source, although they woudl be reliable for their own statements. Thus saying "Uggs were first named in 1958" using Mortels as a source would be a problem, but saying "Mortels claim that they were making uggs in 1958" using Mortels would be fine, as they are a reliable source for their own statements. But what I was refering to was secondary reliable sources which reflect the claims - for example, when the WSJ says "in 1933, a company called Blue Mountains Ugg Boots began producing uggs in a rural region just west of Sydney" then that's a secondary source, and we have the option of reporting it in that manner. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

EVA

Most manufacturers of the classic style use EVA for the soles. This statement is accurate.--Illume1999 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the article says: The soles of the boots are commonly made from Ethylene-vinyl acetate (or EVA). This has a "citation needed". Can you provide a source for this assertion?

The simple statement by any contributor here that a given statement is or isn't accurate is valueless. (Nothing personal here: this is as true of anything I say as it is of anything you say.) Please read this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the classic styles use EVA for the soles, but some styles also use rubber. --Guivi2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guivi2000 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Very possibly, but please read the comment of mine that immediately precedes that of yours. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Made in China

Today, most manufacturing is done in China due to demand and production costs is an accurate statement and one endorsed by most manufacturers.--Illume1999 (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the article says: Today, most manufacturing is done in China due to demand and production costs. This of course presents two assertions: (1) Today, most manufacturing is done in China; (2) this state of affairs is due to demand and production costs.

I happen to find both statements easy to believe. (After all, it seems to be true of most other things, e.g. the computer at which I now type.) But plausibility is not the same as verifiability. Again, please read this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There are about 20 shoe factories in China manufacturing "UGG" boots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guivi2000 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)