If you are involved in contributing to this article and you wish to share your opinion, please note your involvement and nationality. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Ugg boots are a fashion phenomenon, with worldwide sales growing 5000% in the past 16 years. Deckers Outdoor Corporation is almost entirely responsible for this growth, and has trademarked the word "ugg" (or terms like it) in 145 countries, including all of the 29 most heavily populated countries, as the brand name for its line of sheepskin boots. [30] [31] Opinion polling has been introduced as evidence in the courts of several countries, that proves an overwhelming majority of the people in these countries perceive "UGG" as a brand name; Deckers has also introduced declarations from professionals in the footwear industry who stated that "UGG" is widely recognized in the industry as a brand name, not a generic term. [32] (Walter, John F., February 25, 2003, UGG Holdings, Inc. -v- Clifford Severen et al, United States District Court.)

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

A group of editors from Australia and New Zealand are attempting to treat "It's a boot style" as the mainstream view in the Ugg boots article. They are planning to change the current version of the article, which is fairly well-balanced and close to compliance with WP:WEIGHT, [33] to a version that more closely resembles this one: [34] The entire "Concerns about quality" section will be removed. Four key words, "a protected trademark or," will be removed from the article lede. In addition to the changes shown, the Australian editors also want to remove the product counterfeiting cases won by Deckers worldwide. Essentially, they want to remove all the cases that Deckers won, and keep in the article all the cases that Deckers lost.

Aussie editors have repeatedly claimed that the word "ugg" has been removed from the Australian trademark registry, without any basis in fact: [35] [36] The fact of the matter is that only the trademark "UGH-BOOTS" was removed from the registry, and it was for non-use. The Australian government's intellectual properties office, IP Australia, released a fact sheet stating explicitly that IP Australia could not and would not declare "uggs" to be a generic term, and that only the courts had the authority to do so. [37] So far, no court has ruled on the matter.

The fact sheet is posted on the Deckers corporate website. Deckers could be subjected to severe civil penalties, and its corporate officers extradited to Australia and prosecuted in criminal court, if they altered or forged this official government document. This PDF scan should be treated as a reliable source. Much of the content of the IP Australia fact sheet has been mirrored by other reliable sources. [38] [39] The IP Australia fact sheet was once posted on the official government agency website, but it was removed. [40]

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd have to agree with Phoenix and Winslow that the current version is best. I'm not sure that the Concerns about Quality section may need better referencing. MONGO 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Phoenix and Winslow is contending that the current version is not best. Can you clarify what you mean by 'current version'. Thanks. Donama ( talk) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• Before making any comments, I want to be clear that P&W's request that we "state our nationality" is unreasonable. I am, however, involved in the discussions, and happy to acknowledge that.

Currently, there is an article on UGG Australia and another on Deckers Outdoor Corporation, both of which extensively discuss the UGG brand. There is a second part to the story, though: the style of boots, only identified as ugg boots, which originated in Australia and New Zealand. This isn't a case where a trademarked term became generic because of a failure to enforce the trademark, but where a previously-used term was trademarked after it had entered common usage. Thus it makes sense to acknowledge that there are two stories to tell: that of Deckers' and their UGG Australia brand, and the earlier and ongoing use of the term to describe a style of boots which originated in Australia, has particular cultural significance in Australian and New Zealand, and which is only properly identified under that name. To manage this we have used the multiple articles - in particular, one entirely about the brand, and a second article about the style, the latter of which acknowledges of the wider issues with the use of the term. Thus the Ugg boots article discusses the broader history, the trademark disputes where they are related to use of the term itself, and issues surrounding the boots in general, retaining balance by covering both Deckers' brand and the broader picture, and by using a hat note to link to the brand-specific article.

In regard to the two points raised by P&W above:

• With the court cases, the general consensus is that cases of counterfeiting UGG Australia boots belong in the UGG Australia article, as they are specific to one brand. However, cases which impinge on the use of the term itself belong in the Ugg boots article, as they refer to the broader style rather than a single example of that style. It is a difficult line to draw, but the approach has been to look for the use of "the generic term defence" in the court case.
• The problems raised with Concerns about Quality are the subject of an Talk:Ugg boots#RFC on Concerns about quality section, so raising them here while the RfC is ongoing feels a bit like forum shopping. However, the issue is that there is only one source being used, and that source is unreliable. Consensus looks to be to remove the section, with P&W as the main proponent to include it, but consensus is yet to be determined by a neutral party. - Bilby ( talk) 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't discussed mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT, Bilby. What's your opinion on that question? Is "It's a boot style" the mainstream view? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 02:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fringe issue, so no, I haven't discussed it. The question is how do we handle having a well known style, and a better known brand. The solution at the moment is to have an article solely devoted to the brand, an article devoted to the owner of the brand, and an article on the style which makes extensive mention of the brand. That seems to more than meet any weight concerns from the brand's perspective. - Bilby ( talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about fringe? This is mainstream view and minority view per WP:WEIGHT. Minority is not fringe. Having one or two other articles related to this subject does not absolve us of our duty to deal with this specific subject in compliance with WP:WEIGHT. Does it? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 04:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No "nationality" need be marginalized simply because they have a relatively smaller populace as compared to the U.S....just wanted to be clear on that issue. The WEIGHT of any article is based on what the reliable sources tell us...I'm thinking that Bilby is correct in his last comment but a simple clarification need be made in the independent articles so as to render single page views less confusing.-- MONGO 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Australia vs. US. It's Australia and New Zealand vs. 145 countries, including China, India, Russia, the US, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Germany, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Thailand, the Congo, France, the UK, Italy, South Korea, South Africa, Myanmar, Colombia, Spain and the Ukraine. These are the 29 most heavily populated countries in the world. [41] Tanzania (Number 30) is the most heavily populated country in the world where Deckers does not own an UGG-related trademark. Tanzania is an impoverished country near the equator, it isn't exposed to Australian culture, and I doubt that very many people there wear imported sheepskin boots of any sort.

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

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

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

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

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

It's true that Dave isn't from Australia. He's from New Zealand, which shares the same culture and slang, and predictably the same beliefs about the phrase "ugg boots." Three reliable sources agree that Shane Steadman invented ugg boots, but that small point is a distraction. Australia is geographically ten times the size of Texas, but we're talking about population; and as population goes, Australia is ranked 52nd among nations of the world, and New Zealand is ranked 123rd. [43] The phrase "ugg boots" doesn't need to be trademarked since "UGG" is trademarked as a boot brand in so many countries. The Wall Street Journal is a supremely reliable source, and has reported that Deckers owns the trademark in over 100 countries. [44] The "blog entry" Dave disparages is the website of a well-known law firm. [45] An article about ugg boots, for over 98% of the countries of the world where the phrase is known, should be an article that is principally about the brand since in those countries, the phrase is understood to refer to the brand. We cannot allow the other 2% to determine content for the 98%. That's what WP:WEIGHT is about. Clearly, "it's a boot style" is the minority view and "it's a brand name" is the mainstream view worldwide, and the Ugg boots article should be structured accordingly. It isn't anti-Australian sentiment, Dave. It's pro-Wikipedia policy sentiment. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well that misunderstanding is the result of my unfortunate sentence structure. Here let me try it again. They want to remove from Article A any material they find inconvenient, and expel that inconvenient material to Article C. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. You may not like my answer then, as this is essentially what I propose, with modifications. I personally fail to understand the passion being expended here, but I am trying. What is the point of having extensive discussion of counterfeit and quality issues of a brand of boot on a page about a different topic? I think it should be mentioned with a link to another page for further information. See detailed proposal below. If it doesn't work for you, perhaps you could suggest another. Elinruby ( talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the talk section for this article and note some of Phoenix & Winslow's comments about the importance of "protecting Deckers trademark rights" then the reasons for his zeal should become clear. I really don't think anyone looking to protect trademark rights needs to be editing Wikipedia. Mandurahmike ( talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as weight goes, my point is that if the subject of an article is that "in these countries it's a style of boot" then this is the place to discuss the usage in those countries, not elaborate on all the other uses. Yes, there are a lot of other countries in the world. Other stuff exists. And if ugg is used differently in those countries and means a type of boat or banana or red-bottomed gorilla there, then that usage is also separate and if that usage is notable then it should get its own page. The other pages can be mentioned and linked to. This opinion supposes that there are in fact separate pages. (I keep saying that because I don't see why all this would cause a year-long argument if there are three pages.) As for the law firm, I dunno. I am being told that external links are generally not considered reliable. Respected they may be, but let me take a shot and ask if Deckers appears on their client list? Hmmm. Lawyers are advocates, by their nature. Not always objective. I am having my own struggles with this policy and disagree with the way it's gotten applied in the article I am working on, so possibly I am not the person to ask, but that is what I am hearing over in my corner on *that* topic. Elinruby ( talk) 09:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

No, that is incorrect. I want one sentence, which already exists in the article mentioning how sales have increased 50-fold, to mention a dollar amount from the 1990s and a dollar amount from a few years ago to illustrate the growth. No further financial details, just total sales from two years. Wayne removed these dollar amounts just before the article was locked and I want them restored. I don't see the harm in that. Also, since "generic term" is trademark-related legal terminology (look at any government's IP website and you'll get confirmation of the fact very quickly), use of the phrase "generic term" should be limited to the trademarks discussion in this article. I'm not advocating removing it from the article entirely. I just want it limited to the trademark section to prevent confusion. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 04:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, but is this in the page about the brand or about the style? If the style... well. I don't understand. But I made a proposal below and under it you would get a brief section for anything you think should be there as long as it doesn't enrage the other people, lol. Would that work for you? Elinruby ( talk) 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Countering systemic bias

That is what articles do. They discuss their topic. Not other topics.

The purpose of WP:NPOVN

Solution?

Another solution?

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wayne, please stop pretending that you have consensus. There are several new editors on this article and they oppose your alleged consensus. I failed to count Johnuniq in the last tally; he makes it 7/6, which cannot be a consensus either way. I realize you don't like these new editors, and you're mounting a desperate, relentless campaign to delegitimize them. But your avenues for delegitimization are on other pages and Daveosaurus, without any notice to me or anyone else, has been quietly exhausting those avenues. [64] Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I could keep going with examples of the "UGG [Registered Trademark] Australia" brand that prevails. ChristieSwitz88001 ( talk) 02:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't in dispute, and never was. UGG Australia is a registered trademark. Ugg boot, however, is also a commonly used term to describe a style of boots made by multiple manufacturers around the world, that predates the existence of the trademark. Hence the existence of two articles - one on the brand, and one on the style. - Bilby ( talk) 03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the phrase "ugg boot" is only used in Australia and New Zealand to describe a boot style. In the rest of the world, it describes a brand. There is no reason why we can't deal with both in one article, and WP:POVFORK militates strongly against having two articles in these circumstances, where a group of editors with a cultural bias dumps inconvenient material into one article to push their minority POV in the other. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You see to be confusing the term with the thing that it describes. The article is not about the term - it is about a style of footwear with a history that is often quite independent of Deckers, who are a late player in spite of being possibly the biggest, and which is manufactured by a great many companies, of which Deckers is but one. We can't put all of that in an article about a single manufacturer's product. The term we use to refer to the product is also independent to Deckers - it is simply the proper term for the product in the country of origin, and is the only term which uniquly identifies it. But you know all this - the discussion here is not going to progress any more than any of the others have. - Bilby ( talk) 06:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

"The term we use to refer to the product is also independent to Deckers ..." Not outside of Australia and New Zealand, where 99.5% of the population of the world resides. Please try to overcome your cultural bias, Bilby, and see the worldwide perspective. The first few paragraphs of the combined article can and should address the history of the boot style before Deckers arrived on the scene. But after that, it's a story of (A) trademark wars, with nearly all the battles won by Deckers, and (B) exponential growth of the Deckers brand. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 08:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The history of ugg boots is longer than Deckers involvement, its longer than Stedmans involvement, it has manufacturers that have been producing them for over 70 years. Some manufacturers have come and gone other have persisted despite the efforts of Deckers. The term and the style has social, historical connetations that have no reflection on Deckers product and would be inappropriate to be included in an article about Deckers prouct. Deckers product is single part of the story but with sufficient significance that it should have overage as a section of the style article, other issue like counterfiets are a deckers issue where it holds trademarks not a style issue. Nobody disputes they ugg style boots what is in dispute is the use of brands, designs etc that sepficily tailored to reflect/impersonate the deckers product as such this coverage is warranted in the Deckers product article. Again population isnt a measure of weight if it was every association football/soccer article be named just football, weight is measured by reliable sources by far the greatest volume of information on uggs boot style is generated out of Australia because thats were its of greatest interest, thats were its most significant, thats were it has cultural ties and thats where they originated. Gnan garra 10:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the biggest, Deckers appears to be such, but I wouldn't be surprised one day to discover that a Chinese manufacturer of synthetic ugg boots sells more than all the other companies combined. We don't know the figures, but it isn't unusual for a company handling mass production of low-end goods to beat the high end manufacturers in sales or profits. As to the rest: these are two different topics. The style of boots, which includes Deckers brand, and the individual brand. I can't see where in policy we need to merge those two together unless it is because the brand can't support its own article. This has nothing to do with POVFORK or article size, but whether or not two separate subjects are viable as independent articles.

We really need to consider dropping this from this forum. The odds of an independent editor being patient enough to wade through this discussion is vanishingly small. If we can't go to mediation because of lack of support, I guess we're stuck with trying other channels. - Bilby ( talk) 08:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree all of this has discussed and discussed and discussed, consensus has been reached multiple times its always been the same and each time its resulted with "new accounts", its more akin to the disputes around the Church of Scientology. Gnan garra 10:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'd like to know what the Aussie/NZ folks "feel so strongly" about a generic term!!! What in the world is their motive in that? The rest of the world is hungry for the "UGG Australia" brand boot, and obviously sales are really doing well. Putting accurate history behind the popular brand would be a plus! So, don't separate the Aussie's point of view. I think it blends perfectly with the description of the so popular "UGG Australia" brand ... and would clearly complement the article. ChristieSwitz88001 ( talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Putting accurate history behind the popular brand would be a plus! the accurate story is that there is more to ugg boots than the brand, the brand is a significant element nobody denies that, its uggs Australian origins and the Australian culture that makes Australia such a necessity in Deckers UGG Australia brand, its just that for Deckers to accept that they are recognising that ugg is more than just a trademark, they recognising that ugg is a generic term. Gnan garra 17:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Again, Wikipedia is not about "what people think". You can't teach people by presenting them with the same inaccuracies. Mandurahmike ( talk) 19:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Bit of History and a Modest Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider each one individually. I am willing to listen to any other positive suggestions from any editor. I don’t really care about the Quality section, if it is there it’s nice but I don’t feel it is necessary. Let’s not make this personal or about national boundaries. There’s plenty of room for every perspective without denouncing someone as wrong or ignorant.-- Factchk ( talk) 20:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Factchk asked me to comment on the above proposal. It seems to assume that there will be one article; this seems to be unacceptable to many of the other editors. On that basis alone the proposal makes me uncomfortable. Also, I still have not looked at the articles nor at their discussion pages and do not want to do so. I have my own ever-increasing list of things I want to fix and do not want to get sucked into a battle that's been going on for more than two years over copyright decisions I have not researched and do not have the time at the moment to research. I said above that my proposal represented my best understanding of what would be fair. I am hewing to that not so much out of pride of authorship as lack of time. I invited alternate proposals. I am not sure whether this is one. I do continue to object to the way this is getting framed in terms of nationality. To my eye, if there is cultural bias in the story, it lies in a US company trademarking a word in common use in another country and then trying to enforce it in that country. The details of the court case on the subject I leave to the lawyers; I am sure there is at least one in the background of this discussion. I am interested in this discussion but have already contributed what I can to it. Elinruby ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

1: - The lead already does this. I would have no problem with rewording though as long as promotional material is not added.
2: - This was already proposed and failed.
3: - The article already states this. IP Australia stating that they do not have the legal authority to declare a word generic is totally irrelevant as no court makes such rulings. Including this would only serve to imply that courts do rule or that the case had no merit. IP Australia did however state: "The evidence overwhelming supports the proposition that...these terms [UGH BOOT(S), UG BOOT(S) and UGG BOOT(S)] are generic – they are the most immediate and natural ways in which to refer to a particular style of sheepskin boot." To limit the article to a single finding from the IP Australia case is POV. Wayne ( talk) 00:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding suggestion #2, to have a new article discussing the trademark dispute, there seems to be a new consensus for it, so past consensus against it is... past. Binksternet ( talk) 03:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I was comfortable with the original proposal of moving the Trademark disputes to a separate page. I can see the reason why it might be looked on as impractical given the length of that section. In that post, I also raised my concern about naming and the lede as I felt that removing it left no mention of any alternative perspective. This is the result of the lede being altered in recent months from what I felt was acceptable and consensus to one that fails to put things in appropriate context. I think that Binksternet summarized that need fairly succinctly when he/she said that the article should say right away that the word has a different primary connotation in different places. I don’t think we have to promote one version or the other but state it as a fact. Namely that these boots are called uggs in Australia and elsewhere UGG refers to UGG Australia. While we have disagreed about the wording, I think there is consensus about the necessity of clarity as there are different ways of looking at this. I didn’t know that the article already included the non-usage. It could probably use some tidying but I’m glad there is consensus for keeping it up which is good enough for now. I expect there’s going to be a lot of discussion over the particular wording and implementation of the above suggestions but it seems for the moment that there is consensus in principle. We can rail at each other over who is neutral and who isn’t but we been at this for so long that I think we all know where we stand and that isn’t likely to change so we may as well make the best with what we’ve got.-- Factchk ( talk) 16:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since we have the attention of Binksternet and Elinruby why dont we ask them to write an initial lede, then we can work with addressing the balance from an initial uninvolved POV and we can return to the Ugg boot talk page and close this discussion. Gnan garra 23:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Binksternet, but I would have to think about this. My questions would be a) would this involve one article? b) what is its topic? c) is there agreement on the facts of the article?

I'm pretty burned out on wiki-contentiousness, to the point where I am taking a break from an article that I consider really important. See previous comments -- you might be better off drawing straws than listening to me. I am wary of being set up -- not deliberately, but in effect -- for a bunch of argument about boots. Boots, people. I realize that there are cultural issues on the one hand and brand issues on the other, but neither is of burning import to me.

The thing about writing a summary is that it involves deciding which parts of an article are important :) Isn't that what y'all are unable to agree upon? I am not saying no, nor am I saying yes. But I am skeptical. Let's see if anyone else thinks this solves something, ok? Elinruby ( talk) 01:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I share Elinruby's skepticism. The article experts should be able to write this stuff better than I would be. And, yes, it's only about boots with fuzz on the inside. ^_^

Binksternet ( talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support this and any proposal that does not treat Australia as more important than any other country, and Deckers as a gang of thugs. That is and always has been the problem with this article, in a nutshell, starting with the first day it was created. There have been improvements over the years, and as Factchk pointed out, this spring we reached a point where these problems were almost eliminated. But from edit warring and Talk page remarks by various Australian editors, there is still a large group of editors who believe that Australia is more important than any other country, and Deckers is a gang of thugs. If we can't overcome that cultural bias, we will never resolve this dispute. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you care to cite one single instance in the existing article where Deckers are portrayed as a "gang of thugs?" The only place I can possibly see this coming out is in talk pages as a result of thuggish activities within the article on ugg boots. I think the best way to prevent any negative vibes toward Deckers would be if they kept to the Deckers articles and were limited here to a more appropriate mention of the companies role in the worldwide expansion of the larger concept of ugg boots as a style, without turning this into a third article all about Ugg Australia. Mandurahmike ( talk) 20:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Swiftian Counter-Proposal

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

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

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

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

I'm completely serious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

... the items do have a WP:SYNTH look about them (particularly given the history of this article) where, whatever the author's intention, the text could be interpreted as cherry picking of isolated factoids in order to promote a view regarding who "owns" this style of boot. [65]

That's exactly what it was. At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed, [66] and has previously remarked on the advocacy of fringe theories by the opposing de facto spokesman on other articles.

Poorly sourced....that you can't see the misinformation is no surprise..you were trying to peddle fringe nonsense at 911 articles at one point as well. [67]

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

• P&W Quote: I've been supported repeatedly by several veteran editors.
  Hardly "repeatedly" or even significantly. They each supported you once only for the same minor edit that was of little consequence.
• P&W Quote: At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers:
  This was over a year ago, it was removed as trivia not POV and none of the "Australian" editors objected. It was also NOT "on behalf of Australian manufacturers" but a quote by a politician made in Parliament that mentioned only one manufacterer, a non-profit organisation that only employs disabled workers.
• P&W Quote: At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed, [68]
  Mongo, an editor canvassed by you, actually supported the version of the article he "thought" you had proposed. He made a mistake, he didn't realise it was the version in place after your edits had been reverted that he was commenting on.
• P&W Quote: you were trying to peddle fringe nonsense at 911 articles at one point as well.
  If you remember, you reported me for my 911 editing and canvassed seven editors to give evidence against me. Despite several requests to provide evidence, between the seven of you, you could only post a single diff as evidence, the case was dropped and admins told you not to continue making false accusations. Stop bringing up other articles I have edited where I have never been found to have done any wrongdoing. This is a violation of WP:NPA. Wayne ( talk) 15:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Every indication is that the attentions of P&W is toxic to the progress of the Ugg topic articles. Binksternet ( talk) 21:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh. Let's vote.

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

• Let's make that question 1, actually. Is Factchk a bona fide participant, ie should he/she be allowed to vote on the following.

Again, votes here are non-binding, but if some sort of consensus can be achieved, perhaps the article can be unlocked.

• 2.Mentions of UGG brand and associated trademark disputes *on the ugg boots page* should be limited to a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail on some other page.
• 3.The opinions of J.Lo and anyone else on the subject of UGG brand boots belong elsewhere than on the ugg boots page.
• 4.Mentions of Australian boot manufacturers are just as pertinent to the ugg boots page as the American brand.
• 5.The UGG Australia page should have a short summary well down the page, with links to further detail elsewhere, of the existence of an ugg boot style.

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

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

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

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

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

• 1: Abstain. For the obvious reason that I am biased about myself. 2: Yes. Short summary is fine, this should hold true for all disputes including those in Australia. Separate page is a good idea to provide extra details. 3: Yes. Might be pertinent with regards to expansion in US popularity if the scope wishes to be international, but it is understandable that some would find it superfluous. 4: Yes. This is correct. In Australia, all manufacturers are on equal footing as Deckers. Outside Australia, they just have to call their product something else but can still sell sheepskin boots. 5: Perhaps. So long as it is properly marked as being used only in Australia and New Zealand. Maybe we could work in some form of the hatnote discussing the UGG(R) brand on the Ugg boot page. Like putting it in reverse.-- Factchk ( talk) 01:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• sigh!<edit conflict> point 1 isnt for us to reslove and should be taken elsewhere for the wider community to decide until then we should be accepting Factchk particiation in good fiath. Point 2 daughter articles are an accepted practice for subjects that are notable themselve and that have information that is beyond the primary subject. Point 3, a bit grey but if the sourcing is primarily a brand issue then it should primarily be on the brand page. As the brand also has a part in the style article this should get a brief mention as it(animal rights) relates to the style as well. Point 4. Individual mentions only if notable to the style, history or any other section. Point 5 basic article style is lede, followed by a description or history section then other sections based on significance hat note link to style in description section. Gnan garra 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

See here for the actual block concerned [69]. I now await you presenting anything to back up your absurd allegations of "cultural bias" or whatever PC buzzword you're using this week. Daveosaurus ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

ChristieSwitz88001 ( talk) 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

• • I would like to formally state, that I while I accept Factchk's role here, obvious meatpuppets such as this, who only appeared out of nowhere to be part of this discussion, be discounted from this vote as requested by the user who made the proposition. Mandurahmike ( talk) 10:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike I feel I should point out what others have said about allowing the proper authorities to determine if someone is acting in bad faith. Christie began editing on Wikipedia a full month before this discussion began and has edits on several other pages. To my knowledge she has not been found to be a likely meatpuppet/sockpuppet in any investigation. By those standards she qualifies to participate in this discussion. You don’t have to agree with her opinion. I don’t think it’s fair to assume bad faith WP:DNB.-- Factchk ( talk) 20:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please.

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

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

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

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

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

• I've asked at AN/I for this to be closed, even challenged them to read the whole discussion. Gnan garra 11:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Ugg Australia (registered trademark)

A. BRAND DESCRIPTION

1. Types of products

2. Sales, statistics

3. History of the company – and people involved

B. HISTORY OF UGG BOOT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD

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

2. How “ugg” got it’s name

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

C. TRADEMARK LAW AND DISPUTES

1. …

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

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

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

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

A. History of Ugg boots throughout the world

B. Brand description (including multiple brands if noteworthy enough to have their own articles)

C. Trademark law and disputes

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

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

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

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

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

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

A compromise proposal

I think the following proposal should take all concerns into account:

• Move Ugg boots to Fashion crime.
• Extend the article so as to discuss other fashion crimes as well.
• Keep the redirect fromm Ugg boots to Fashion crime.
• Put the following note at the top of Fashion crime:

  "Ugg boots" redirects here. For the brand named after this Australian generic term, see UGG Australia.

For further information on the background of this proposal, see WP:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations and related reports in the world media. Hans Adler 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

PS to UGG Australia editors: I strongly suggest that you escalate this to your supervisor. Hans Adler 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh

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

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

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

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