Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:29, 11 October 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Fashion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Law High‑importance Ugg boots is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Animal rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Nov 2005—Dec 2008) Archive 2 (March—April 2010) Archive 3 (May—July 2010) Archive 4 (August 2010) Archive 5 (Aug–Sept 2010) Archive 6 (Sept 2010 – )

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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/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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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)

How do you feel about rewriting the lede?

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

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

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

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

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

And why are you deleting the well sourced facts I've added concerning the settlement of the Emu Australia lawsuit? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

P&W, the info on the resolution to the Emu case has been restored. Sorry for reverting it (yes, multiple times). I recommend you not slip in newly sourced information with a mass of other POV edits. Returning editors like myself have our patience totally worn down by your continued pushing of POV content into this article. Donama (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The alleged "mass of other POV edits" consisted of (A) simply rearranging the sentences in the article lede to more clearly recognize the leading role Deckers has played in making UGG brand boots a worldwide fashion icon; and (B) removing the word "ugg" from a description of events that occurred decades before the term was coined. The repeated deletion of well-sourced facts regarding dismissal of the Emu Australia lawsuit -- facts that happen to be favorable to Deckers -- by two editors (Donama and TMCk) demonstrates their bias against Deckers. A thorough review of the Emu Australia website confirms that any mention of the word "ugg" has been removed, and it happened at the same time as the settlement. Do you really believe this is a coincidence? And as a result of the settlement, Emu's accusations about false statements to the USPTO have been withdrawn.

This is clearly a huge win for Deckers, and an illustration of the fact that at Misplaced Pages, such unproven allegations by partisan litigants should never be included in the article mainspace. Anyone can make accusations that are spurious and even ridiculous, but proving them in a court of law is far more difficult. It was this particular hurdle that produced the failure by Emu Australia. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, as the sources don't seem to reveal what the conditions of the settlement were, I'm a bit uncomfortable with using what looks like original research to establish what the agreement was. It does't seem like particularly bad OR, so I certainly won't object if consensus is to add it, but I think we need to look for consensus first. - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If we don't have a source for the settlement, we shouldn't have the material in the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason why WP:OR is not allowed. I don't dispute that Emu have removed the word ugg from their website, but we don't know why, and if it was as part of the backroom agreement in this case, then presumably Deckers made some concession too, but we just don't know what it is because it's not on the public record. I'm totally against inclusion of this information not just because there's no source (which is reason enough), but because its very likely to be incomplete information about the conclusion of the case. Donama (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

P&W claims "the case was dismissed" but in the actual cited references it states that the matter was "settled" or that the parties "reached a settlement" - wording which gives a very different impression to a casual reader. In any case the relevance of this internecine squabble between manufacturers to this article about the generic footwear style is not great. Suggest that P&W's energy would be better spent adding it to the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article where it is somewhat more relevant. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The confidential settlement and dismissal of all claims provides no further support to either parties’ allegations or positions in this matter. All the back and forth discussion concerning this case only supports the fact that mere allegations of partisan litigants have no encyclopedic value. I think most people would agree that only objective judgments from the court should be reported on cases like this.--Factchk (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Channel 7 testing

I've removed the section:

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

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

Any sort of comparative quality testing is always relevant and notable, and if you can find other test results that are more recent and from equally unbiased sources, please bring them here to the Talk page for discussion. I only added that to the article without discussion because the source had already been used for a long time, and was not in dispute. I think quality testing is important enough to go into the article lede, and so I've added it. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to clarify this. I think the inclusion of further information about the quality test study should be welcomed. The original statement was unclear. It said that the Australian manufacturers were superior when the opposite is true. I thought that section warranted more detail from the start, as it left the facts of the story open to interpretation and/or confusion. Now if we want to argue over its intrinsic value, that's another discussion. I can see the case for both sides. On the one hand it provides some empirical, third-party data to the competition between Deckers and Australian manufacturers. Since it is coming from a news outlet and includes quotations from a prominent individual within the industry, I don't think it has any POV issues. On the other, I can see how one would want to avoid cluttering up the page any more than is already the case. I've restored here because I like the idea of keeping the debate open. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The only relevance of the paragraph is that synthetic is better than natural. The original sentence says that and doesn't need the added fluff.

Independent testing by Channel 7 in Perth, Western Australia ranked the Australian synthetic ugg boots made in China higher in quality than Deckers, which are also made in China, and the Australian made sheepskin boots.

It does not say that "the Australian manufacturers were superior when the opposite is true" as the anon claims, it simply says that the synthetic is superior to Deckers and Australian made. I vote for the original if it is included. Wayne (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

It seems peculiar to me that everyone approved both the statement and the source for a very long time, when the statement in the article was inaccurate. But since I've corrected the factual inaccuracy, the statement is described as "meaningless" and the source described as " exactly a reliable source." Why was it all right before, but not now? 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll clarify again. The original entry said in effect, "Australian company makes the highest quality ugg boots." But the winner was a synthetic, and a reliably sourced statement elsewhere in the article described synthetics as "fake." My correction states accurately, in effect, "Deckers makes the highest quality sheepskin boots." I feel this is an improvement of the article and it should be in the lede. Quality is a very important issue. Testing results by a third party are very notable. I'm not cherry picking this test result. If there are other test results from reliable third parties, let's include those as well. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mimicking the ugg boot style enables the "fake ugg" manufacturer to cash in on the fashion craze that Deckers created with their marketing. But the "fake ugg" producer spends far less money in manufacturing. It's the style that attracts many consumers. If they look like ugg boots, some people will buy them, especially since they are cheaper. I heard that the fake uggs retain odor, which may not have shown up in the Channel 7 quality tests. Imagine smelling like dirty socks every time you wear these boots. Channel 7 tested for durability by tearing the boots apart and measuring the amount of energy required to tear them apart. The original wording of the article said that the Australian company's synthetic ugg boots won the quality testing and that, I'd suggest, is reasonably understood as "Australian boots are highest quality." 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I disagree with having the original text, but it wasn't given a lot of weight, so wasn't a major concern. We now give more weight to one review than any other, (noting that we include no other reviews), which is clearly undue, and in that coverage have been giving attention to on a single reading of the results. Today Tonight is not exactly known for unbiased product reviews, so I wouldn't consider them reliable on this score on any article, and I certainly wouldn't feature them as the only review in an article. Let the Decker's UGG Australia article talk about the quality of UGG Australia boots, if it can be balanced. This one should just talk about the history. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Until now, with an inaccurate paraphrase of the test results, you didn't have a problem with it. Now that the article here at Misplaced Pages states the quality test results with greater precision, suddenly you have all these objections. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read my comment above, I point out that I had concerns previously, but it was a small section, so it wasn't a big deal. Now it has been expanded, giving one single review considerable weight, and those concerns have become somewhat bigger. Your new section, bringing even more focus onto a single review, doesn't help this. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow keeps complaining about an "inaccurate paraphrase". Synthetic is better quality than both Deckers and Australian sheepskin, what exactly is inaccurate about this claim? If P&W is going to keep insisting that the Today Tonight article promote Deckers then I have no problem excluding it to avoid unneccessary edit waring. If it gets any worse we will end up with a style and price list for Deckers products. The article is about the boots, it is not about the merits of any particular brand. Wayne (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No Wayne, the new paragraph quotes the Australian Sheepskin Association, which clearly supports the Australian manufacturers in their dispute with Deckers elsewhere on the same web page. The new paragraph doesn't mention the durability testing by Channel 7. It's longer than that paragraph and it's placed before that paragraph, therefore giving the ASA greater weight. We've had this discussion before regarding a different article and we had to go over WP:WEIGHT one line at a time. Higher placement in the article and greater length both provide greater weight to the Australians. Also, it isn't just about one brand. It's about all six of the brand studied in the Channel 7 testing.

I've just added another foreign case in which the "generic term" defense was shot down in flames, and I've also made corrections in other sections of the article to more accurately reflect what the sources actually say. Let's see whether those sections get deleted too. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to have anything remotely associated with "Today Tonight" listed as a source for something that is supposed to be encyclopaedic. The results of this study, if included here, would be out of the context of early-mid 2000s Australian current affairs where things like "We looked at ten different brands of popular washing detergent... Which cleaned the best??? The results might not be what most of you would think......." cropped up at least once a week. This repeated motif was even parodied on the ABC TV programme "Frontline". It's like using "Ghost Hunters" as a source for an article on the afterlife. Any thought of its inclusion here is nothing but cherry picking as users search for anything they can find to support their preferred reality for the article. Just ask yourself how you would react if certain editors found an article in The National Enquirer that supported the generic position. While Today Tonight isn't quite on the same silliness level as that publication, it is still among Australia's lowest forms of journalism. Mandurahmike (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes! That 7perth.com.au page is the opposite of a reliable source—it's just entertainment fluff and it would only be accidental if their results were accurate and useful in an encyclopedic article. Perhaps the enthusiasts would like to create Which UGG BOOT is best? and put all the market comparison and consumer awareness stuff there. That suggestion is a weak joke to point out that such material is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible bias among editors

I am new to editing this article, and I hope to bring a fresh perspective. Everyone please examine your own motives in editing this article. Do you work for a manufacturer, or are you linked to them in some way? Are your editing decisions motivated by a misplaced sense of national pride, whether you are from America or Australia? Misplaced Pages is not just for Americans or Australians. For nearly every reader in all the other countries of the world, the term "Ugg boots" refers to a brand name. I have lived in some of those those other countries for many years and this is a fact. Whether it is due to Deckers using aggressive marketing and aggressive lawyers is irrelevant. It is a fact. I am an immigrant to America, born and raised in China, and then lived for five years in Europe while studying. I can tell you from my experience that it is a fact. But my experience doesn't matter to Misplaced Pages. What matters is the reliable sources. These confirm that for the rest of the world, "Ugg boots" is a brand name. Please stop fighting over this. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, we've had this argument before, and it has been discounted. If you wish to read or write about the UGG Australia brand, there is a perfectly good article on the topic at UGG Australia. If you wish to read or write about the Australian style of footware, there is this article. That has always seemed like the best method of distinguishing between the two uses of the term - have two articles. Other than this, I see no value in revisiting the argument: it has been done to death. - Bilby (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

After an extensive review of the editing history, it appears to me that the Australian editors seem very comfortable with an extensive discussion of the UGG Australia brand, as long as it's losing a court battle in the Australian IP courts, and losing a quality comparison with an Australian brand in a Channel 7 news story. But when the discussion turns to the UGG Australia brand being the best genuine sheepskin boot in the very same Channel 7 news story, and winning every other court battle around the world, there are calls from the Australian editors to remove that material. It's like publishing a book about Napoleon's empire, describing it as a complete history, but you stop writing after the Battle of Borodino, the last battle that Napoleon won. All the battles afterward that Napoleon lost were left out of the book. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Shockingly, I note that the other court cases are all in the article. I can see the clear bias there. My issues with the review are well outlined above, and have nothing to do with Decker's being promoted - I would be just as opposed to including any single review claiming that any manufacturer made the best boots. This is an issue of being unbalanced and providing undue weight to a single, unreliable, source. It is not related to who was being promoted by that source. Perhaps it can be better described as imagining an article about beer, that references only a single review, and on that basis describes one beer as the best. I like beer analogies much better than Napoleon. - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you start objecting to Channel 7 as an unreliable source, or to the presence of a single quality review without others, until a few days ago, Bilby? Please don't feel that I'm singling you out. If Phoenix and Winslow appears, I'll have a few questions for him as well. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As explained above, a few days ago the coverage of the "study" consisted on one sentence that didn't draw a direct comparison between manufacturers of sheepskin ugg boots, but instead drew a comparison between synthetic and sheepskin boots. That was then expands to turn it into a comparison between manufacturers, placing considerable weight on the the study. I wasn't happy with the old text, but it was minimal. This became an issue now when the coverage of that study extended to something like four or five times the original coverage,appeared in both the lead and the trademark sections, and started trying to draw direct comparisons between manufacturers of sheepskin boots. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also there have been attempts by Australian editors to remove those other court cases. Surely you remember these attempts. I've seen them in the archives of this Talk page. The current presence of other court cases in the article does not alter this history of objections. Why do you prefer for the article to discuss "Australians won" at such great length, but find excuses to remove the "Australians lost" material about the same subject? We are writing about this subject, and readers should be able to find all the relevant material, both the wins and the losses, in one article. If you like your beer analogy, then find another quality study and if it is reliable and neutral, we should include it. But making one study and then publishing it is what the secondary sources always do. Misplaced Pages follows wherever the secondary sources lead. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In general, the objection to the other court cases have been based on whether or not they were directly related to the generic term. The concern was mostly with the Dutch case, which was primarily about counterfeiting, and in which the generic term defence played only a very small role and wasn't originally included - however, as coverage now focuses on the relevant part of that, there isn't a problem. In regard to more reviews, I'd rather not turn this article into a shopping guide. Putting in twenty or thirty reviews to balance things out would be a terrible direction for an article about a style of footwear, as opposed to individual products, to go. Putting in just one is undue weight. Adding now handles the NPOV problem much better. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have read the history then you will know that the regular Australian editors have not been removing the other court cases. What do you mean by "great length"? The so called "Australians won" material is 120 words compared to 410 words for "Australians lost" not to mention an additional 288 words in the trademark section. You should be more concerned about the constant POV pushing for Deckers. The "Concerns about Quality" section is irrelevant as this article is not about comparing brands or promoting Deckers. Who has concerns anyway? Certainly not consumers as they have never been fashionable in Australia. Wayne (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In this section of the Talk page it's clear that Bilby was suggesting removal of the Dutch case, and had already removed a blockquote from that section. Bilby said, "The argument you've provided for keeping that case in the article ..." So the counter argument Bilby was apparently making was that the case should be out of the article. The edit history in the article itself shows this was the case. Wayne, you have only recently joined this discussion like me. When entering as the new person in a long discussion, it's good to review. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are counting words, remember that Misplaced Pages is produced from the sources. If a majority of sources describe cases that the Australians lost, then a majority of the space in this article devoted to court cases should discuss those cases that the Australians lost. If Napoleon won all the battles for two years and then lost all the battles for the next four years, then only the first one-third of the book should cover Napoleon's victories, no more, no less. We follow where the sources lead us, and we must do it without bias. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias is nothing new on this page. A while back I posted information about a fact sheet which had been by issued by IP Australia regarding the entirety of the trademark dispute in Australia. (I am unable to track down the online version, but I did download a PDF when I had the chance, I can send if you like) It stated that IP Australia determined that in 1971, “Based on the information available at the time, the UGH marks were found to be suitable for registration and in the absence of any successful opposition actions were subsequently registered.” It also stated, “If a trade mark has become generic, a case may be made before a court for removal of that mark from the register of trade marks. Only the court system can give a definitive answer about whether a term is generic. The question of whether the term UGG of UGH is generic has not been considered by the courts.” These statements, along with the entire source were not allowed based on claims that they were too close to the action to be considered secondary sources. I found that to be ludicrous since here we had a government agency saying explicitly what it’s own rights were with respect to the case without making argument for either side.--Factchk (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney's statement

Ok, I removed the David Steward reference in this section:

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

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

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

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

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

Serious Problem with the Lede

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

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

You seem to have a deep misunderstanding about what WP is and is not. We are not a consumer guide for shopping!TMCk (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But we provide all information that is relevant and notable about the subject, and we follow where the reliable secondary sources take us. If a reliable secondary source produces a durability study, we should report its results. It is relevant to the story of the boot style, and it is notable. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Fatchak, this article is about a style of boots which originated in Australia and New Zealand, that is identified only as "ugg boots" - a term that originated in the countries of origin. The lead should be clear that this is about the style of footwear. This style of footwear is also available outside of Australia and New Zealand, so changing the lead to read This article is about the type of footwear in Australia and New Zealand would be misleading, because that type of footwear is not exclusive to those two countries.

The reason for removing the Channel 7 "study" from the lead is because that would give it massive undue weight. It is, as I've said above, one and only one study, by a questionable source, and thus including it in the lead would give it an undue emphasis. - Bilby (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You avoided this question before, so I'll ask again: why have you waited until just these past few days before objecting to Channel 7 News as a "questionable source"? 63.171.91.193 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't avoided the question. I've responded here, and previously explained here and here. My concern is one of weight. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You used the term "questionable source," But when asked to explain why you've waited so long to object, you don't address WP:RS. You address weight. Consider the reliability issue waived. Your issue is weight, which is largely a matter of opinion. I think it would be really hard to accurately describe the actual results of the study without at least 40-50 words. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The reliability holds. My promary concern is with due weight, but in particular due weight of a Today Tonight story. If this test was the result of a neutral and respected consumer publication, it would be less of an issue with due weight, but still a serious problem. But it isn't even that. - Bilby (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not really important if he/she really "waited" to object and is just your opinion that they did so. As it turnes out, they made their point(s) before so maybe it's time to stop commenting on the editors and focus on the subject. We sure don't need any good or bad faith distruction here.TMCk (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just accused of sockpuppetry in an edit summary, so stop whining. The timing of these objections about the study, coming on the heels of deletion of well-sourced material about the settlement of the Emu Australia lawsuit, strongly suggests that there is a genuine bias problem here among some of the Australian editors — even if we ignore all the previous history. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

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

My understanding, since the edit summary contained a hotlink behind the phrase "sock drawer" that led to a sockpuppetry investigation page against me, was that I was accused of running 63.171.91.193 as a sock. That was a reasonable understanding. It's a false accusation, and if any of you chooses to report it to WP:SSP a Checkuser will confirm that it's a false accusation. The timing of Bilby's decision to raise concerns about source reliability, the repeated deletion of well-sourced material about the dismissal of the Emu Australia case, Wayne following me to this page in violation of WP:STALK, and the previous diligent efforts to keep out anything that made Deckers look good while including anything that made Deckers look bad, all point to an anti-Deckers bias on the part of some of the editors here.

If you want to challenge Channel 7's reliability as a source, Wayne has already experienced how things tend to go at the reliable sources noticeboard. He lost. I won. So let's go.

Anybody who puts the word "magnificent" in his username has an ego that's too enormous and fragile for real collegial, cooperative editing on a project like this one. It's very late at night here and you're really starting to get annoying. So I'm going to call it a night before I say something I'll regret. Go and harass somebody else. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Care to provide evidence of stalking? We only have two articles in common and I was editing this one before you first began editing the other which I had already been editing for some time. Just another example of your tendentious claims, I cant hear you behaviour, outright lying and misdirection to support your own POV claims. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If you were editing this article before, you stopped. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not productive, I do see signs of an anti-Deckers bias on these pages from a few editors. But I also see signs of a possible pro-Deckers bias on your part. What is your reaction to this observation? Many of your edits are good and well researched. I would like to know how you found this Turkish case if you are not directly connected to Deckers in some way. But your good edits do not excuse others that appear to be possible pro-Deckers advertising. Please be careful about this. See your edits through the eyes of the Australians. I also sense a degree of personal animosity here. Let's all focus on improving the article. Those who come to Misplaced Pages with other agendas often find themselves blocked. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a mention of the Turkish case in a legal magazine. The law firm was mentioned so I looked at their website. When I arrived at this article, just like the previous article I edited with Wayne, I could see that there was a lot wrong with it. An enormous amount. And the editors already present on the article had made it that way, and liked it that way. So when I tried to resolve these problems, they resisted. They made accusations. They reverted me. If NPOV means that an article should find neutral ground between A and B, and the article happens to be standing on A because existing editors have a bias against B, then attempting to push the article toward that neutral ground might be perceived as a bias in favor of B.

Nobody's perfect. When I attempt to push toward neutral ground, I might write something that could objectively be seen as biased. It isn't intentional and I apologize for that, but I'm doing my best to create an NPOV article here. When I arrived it was very heavily biased against Deckers, and in favor of the Australian manufacturers. There's been a lot of improvement. More needs to be done. You've been very helpful in checking the source, and determining that the results of the Channel 7 quality tests were not being represented accurately here. So you can see how it is, and how they are. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor without even a basic knowledge of law just happened to read a legal magazine containing a ref to the court case that is not mentioned online? I applaude the improvement to your research skills over the last months. Wayne (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of the law, as you learned during your miserable failure to turn Misplaced Pages into a WP:FRINGE data source at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. That article was stubbed by WP administrators because it was packed with your fringe theory information, from a source found to be unreliable (due to my efforts) at WP:RSN. This may help explain to others your obvious animosity toward me. I happen to know that the WIPO site has an entire page that they have devoted to "well known marks." So I combine the word UGGS with that phrase in a Google search every now and then. Surprise, surprise: the Turkish case is listed first in that Google search. Now you're devoted to wrecking this article like the Franklin article, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You initially lost the WP:RSN but later won ONLY after canvassing for support, for which you were reprimanded, which gave you a majority. The source is still used in other WP articles and was only found to be unreliable for that particular article. The WP:FTN was closed unresolved. Seeing as you are continually making personal attacks based on lies to support your case here I cannot leave the accusations unchallenged. That article was only stubbed because you successfully argued that photocopies of primary and secondary sources could not be verified against the originals for accuracy so could not be used. While the primary sources are sealed by court order the secondary sources reporting on the primary sources are available but at a cost of over $1000 unless they are accessed at the source in the US. Although you had access to the secondary sources and did read some of them you refused to allow Misplaced Pages access or confirm that the copies were accurate, I assume as it would have prevented the stubbing. That was the only reason the article was stubbed. Why you put so much effort (and repeated so many lies) into having a long standing well written article deleted eludes me. I find it hard to believe that it was because the article was irrelevant, politically motivated smear as you claimed. Wayne (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW. It's interesting that you originally said you found the case in a legal magazine then later said you found it in a google search. I found it impossible to find the Turkish case at all on Google without using details from the case yet using the unlikely term "Uggs well known marks" that you suggested brings up over five million results with the obscure WalkerMorris lawfirm website ranked number one. Can firms still pay Google to have ranking because it cant be based on traffic. Wayne (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, just like the mainspace in Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, you're in the habit of twisting the truth and distorting key details. For one thing, I didn't say that I found the article using Google. I merely pointed out that it is easily found using Google. As for the rest, the record at ] speaks for itself. That unreliable source might still be used at other WP articles because I haven't taken the time to track your fringe theories down yet. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

"Whining"? What the hell are you taking about. I'm sure it's not your promo-bias shown all over international wikis but your obvious bias right here that makes you see things that are not there to put it mildly. Get to the point if you have the earch to comment on the editor rather than responding to editors on the subject. And taking about sockpuppetry: You never were cleared; The result of check user was "possible" so try not to stear the pot that's cooking you.TMCk (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I'm not obsessed with this article as you are. Might be worth a story...TMCk (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this is an issue for here. While we've had sockpuppetry concerns in the past, I'm happy to AGF and assume that P&W wasn't involved. Either way, though, it is an issue for other forums, and/or WP:SPI. - Bilby (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Massive revert — please explain

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. This will be long, because on your one edit, described as "Another Australian case has just been uncovered" you a) added another Australian case, and b) made significant changes to multiple other paragraphs without noting this in your edit summary. But so be it.

Change 1:

There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether "ugg" is a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection, especially in the region of origin. Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds the UGG trademark in 145 countries worldwide. Notable exceptions are Australia and New Zealand where the term is considered generic.

Changed to

There has been a dispute between some manufacturers of ugg boots, as to whether "ugg" is a protected trademark or a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection. Deckers Outdoor Corporation holds exclusive rights to the UGG trademark in 145 countries worldwide. Notable exceptions are Australia and New Zealand where many companies use trademarks that include the UGG term.

We have long held here, without any prior problems, that ugg boot is a generic term in Australia. Your change on this deliberately inserts a particular POV. Sources making that point include , and . Most importantly, the trademark case which you say didn't find that it was a generic term, states "The evidence overwhelmingly supports the proposition that the terms (ugg, ugh and ug boots) are interchangeably used to describe a specific style of sheepskin boot and are the first and most natural way in which to describe these goods." You know this, and it has never been an issue. The trademark was removed for non-use, but it was also found that the term was generic in Australia. Note that Australian's don't use UGG, but ugg.

Change 2:

The origins of the ugg boot style are disputed, with both Australia and New Zealand claiming to have been the origin of the footwear. Sheepskin boots were known in rural Australia during the 1920s. While it is not clear when manufacturing started, by 1933 ugg boots were being manufactured by Blue Mountains Ugg Boots, and Mortels Sheepskin Factory was making the boots from the late 1950s.

Changed to:

The origins of the ugg boot style are disputed, with both Australia and New Zealand claiming to have been the origin of the footwear. Sheepskin boots were known in rural Australia during the 1920s. While it is not clear when manufacturing started, by 1933 sheepskin boots were being manufactured by Blue Mountains Ugg Boots, and Mortels Sheepskin Factory was making the boots from the late 1950s. Australian surfer Shane Steadman is credited with having invented Ugh boots. In 1971, Steadman registered UGH-BOOTS as an Australian trademark.

Blue Mountains Ugg Boots specifically claimed to be making ugg-style boots, not just sheepskin boots. Again, you are trying to insert a POV. Second, your claim that Steadman invented them is unsourced, controversial, and, as you are aware, extensively disputed: even by Shane Steadman.

Change 3: You added:

In 2007, the Australian Federal Court granted an injunction against a seller of counterfeit boots that ordered the seller to cease infringing Deckers' UGG trademark, and awarded Deckers' monetary damages; the sellers failed to comply with the injunction and were found in contempt. The worst offender, Vladimir Vaysman, was imprisoned for a 10-year sentence.

This is a counterfeit issue. This is not about using the term "ugg", but using the full "Ugg Australia" name with a near identical logo to pass off boots as being Decker's boots. In addition, it relates to online sales on eBay. As you have previously shown, you understand that court cases relating to the generic term defence may have a place here, and that counterfeiting issues belong on UGG Australia or Deckers. This is out of place.

If you are going to make massive changes, bring them to talk first. If you are going to add court cases that have almost nothing to do with the scope of this article, consider adding them to the articles where they apply, instead. And if you are going to insert unsourced incorrect and controversial claims, take them off wiki. Sorry for the length of this response. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you have insisted on returning disputed material without first seeking consensus to include it, can you at least remove the false claim that Steadman invented ugg boots? This reverting - especially claiming to do it to include one thing, while sneaking in a whole lot more - is not how this should be approached, but I think it is reasonable to request that we remove false and unsourced claims from your revert. - Bilby (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that Steadman invented "ugh boots." I would like to see a source for this before restoring it. "Sneaking in" material at Misplaced Pages is impossible. Making an edit while failing to discuss it on the Talk page and in the edit summary is something that happens very often, usually with no intention to "sneak" anything in. When an important factual claim is made that is unsupported by reliable sources, and is actually reported by some other editors to contradict a reliable source, no prior discussion is necessary. It should be removed immediately. I'm not an attorney, but I see no reason to disbelieve Phoenix when he says that "generic term" is legal terminology that has a specific meaning in trademark law. The limited amount of reading I've done tends to support him. I think we need to be much more careful about our use of such terms. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't believe that the massive number of changes Phoenix and Winslow made, with the edit summary "Another Australian case has just been uncovered" count as sneaking things in? When most had nothing to do with the court case? So be it.

In regard to sources:

"The McDougalls had appealed to the organisation that regulates trademarks in Australia, claiming that ugg - originally an abbreviation of ugly, so it is believed - was a generic term. Yesterday they received the news that the regulator, IP Australia, agreed."

"But Intellectual Property Office NZ spokeswoman Shirley Flaherty said the trademark awarded to Deckers did not include footwear. She said ugg boots were a generic term along with alternative spellings such as ug and ugh and could not be trademarked. "But there is the option for traders to apply for a logo trademark that might contain a stylised version." ("Ugg safe name for sheepskin boots", Dominion Post, 12/7/2008)

"This week, the McDougalls received the news that the name is to be removed from the Australian register of trademarks, meaning it is now a generic name. " ("Aussie manufacturers reclaim ugg boots", Bulletin Wire, 17/01/2008)

"It was reported last week that the company, thwarted in 2003 by the national trademark regulator who ruled the term "ugg" was generic, may try again to copyright it in Australia." ("Brand owner puts the boot in on Ugg", The Age, 8/6/2010)

"American company Deckers tried to claim the name in 2003, but the national trademark regulator ruled the term was generic and could apply to any kind of sheepskin boot" ("Ugg under copyright threat", AAP, 2/6/2010)

We can find more, but the point is that this isn't an issue, and never was. For years that aspect of this article hasn't been in dispute, and there are no reasons why that should be now - other than simple disruption. This is removing the focus from the issues that actually are in dispute. - Bilby (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The headline "Ugg under copyright threat" and the phrase "may try again to copyright it in Australia" are telltale signs that these may not be reliable sources. This has never been about copyright law. It's about trademark law. I'm not a lawyer, but even I can tell the difference. What about this IP Australia fact sheet that Factchk and Phoenix have mentioned? Why aren't we using it? If it's from IP Australia, wouldn't that be a reliable source? 63.171.91.193 (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you find AAP, The Age and The Independent to be unreliable, but feel that Today Tonight is fine. Be that as it may, as far as I am aware, the Fact Sheet is no longer available, but it stated that a court case would be needed to return a legal finding that ugg boots is a generic term, even though the findings in the earlier case did come to that conclusion (in a non-legally binding sense). I have no problems, though, with refraining from describing the IP Australia findings that way, because it could be misleading to suggest that this was a legal finding, and I'm happy with the current wording for that section. I do have problems with pretending, in spite of numerous reliable sources, (including at least one academic paper), that the term is not a generic term in Australia and New Zealand. - Bilby (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't claimed that The Independent or the AAP is unreliable. But I do worry about relying so much on the works of Kathy Marks, whether they are in The Independent or elsewhere. She is not the only writer who has written about this subject and she's just a journalist, not a trademark attorney or an expert of some other sort. Apparently she has no more expertise in these matters than you or me, but roughly half the article is derived from her works. The phrase "ugg boots" is in common usage in Australia and New Zealand to refer to a style of boot, like "cowboy boot" in America, and the article does say so very clearly in more than one place. But it appears to me that the phrase "generic term" has a specific meaning in the law, like "habeas corpus" or "manslaughter," and we need to be careful about that. Brian Iverson's selection of that particular phrase, when he was being interviewed by Wall Street Journal magazine, may have been advised by an attorney. I suspect that such phrases do not normally appear in conversations among non-attorneys without some prompting. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Terry, Andrew; Forrest, Heather (2007-2007) "Where's the Beef - Why Burger king Is Hungry Jack's in Australia and other Complications in Building a Global Franchise Brand", Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 28, p 188. "Despite their long heritage, the term "ugg" (or any of the common variations including "ugh" and "ug") was not registered as a trademark until 1971, presumably because it was considered by manufacturers and consumers to be a generic term. ... What is more surprising is that a name which was widely regarded as generic-because it had become the common term associated with a particular category of goods and lacked the capacity to distinguish the product of the trademark owner from that of other companies-was not denied registration in the first place." Legally, the "generic term status" has not been tested in court. This, though, does not mean that it isn't the case, and we have so many sources supporting that view there is nothing wrong with saying that it is a generic term in Australia and New Zealand. We can't say that it has been tested in court, but we can say that it is considered to be generic. This isn't like accusing someone of a crime - we can rely on sources to show that it is generic in the normal sense off the word. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I reverted the Vaysman court case because it did not involve a generic term defense. Wayne (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed all the problematic edits P&W did. Please DO NOT keep adding edits that have been rejected bthy consensus. Wayne (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They haven't been rejected by consensus. They've been rejected by you and Bilby. There are many other editors on this page and they haven't weighed in yet. Don't pronounce judgment until they have. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

These edits have been rejected by two editors with tacit approval of two others who prefer to comment rather than edit. You are the lone voice and making threats to stubb the article if the majority of editors dont change their minds and agree with you may have worked on a controversial article but will get you nowhere here. Discuss what you want and make a case. If your edit has any merit it can be used. Wayne (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

IP Australia fact sheet

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

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

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

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

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

Raising any issues with the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations is inappropriate. - Bilby (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP Australia fact sheet is mirrored to a very large degree on this site and is also reported extensively on this site. TheNewInventors.com and Australian Trademark Law Blog don't have any COI, in fact if they have any bias at all it would be in favor of the Australian manufacturers, but their reporting is remarkably similar to the descriptions by Middletons and the scan by Deckers. Sorry but I cannot agree this this is an unreliable source. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated above, the IP Australia Fact Sheet describes the status in law - whether or not it is a generic term has not been tested in court. Shockingly, courts have also failed to test most of the English language. We cannot say "legally, 'ugg boots' has been found to be a generic term in Australia." That's the point of the Fact Sheet. But this doesn't mean that ugg boots is not a generic term, and, as you say, this is not a BLP - making that claim, based on reliable sources, is fine. Doubly so if we make it clear that it has not been tested in court.

Note that in the NZ case, the trademark registration body made it clear that an application to register ugg boots would be denied, because it is a generic term. It would not have to be tested in courts at all, as it would be denied outright. Again, this is a non-issue. - Bilby (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A search for consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class fashion articles
• High-importance fashion articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• High-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Australian law articles
• High-importance Australian law articles
• WikiProject Australian law articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• C-Class Animal rights articles
• Mid-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles