Talk:Ugg boots

EVA

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

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

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

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

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

Made in china

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

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

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

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

Further improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First here are two credible secondary sources about the importance of Oprah to the popularity of Australian sheepskin boots. [1][2] Second, its fairly obvious that style of sheepskin boots is appropriate since many have been contending that this article is devoted to a style. To say “sheepskin boots” implies that this article applies to all sheepskin boots that happen to be unisex. Thirdly, it appears that we have 3 different claimants to coining the term, Blue Mountains, Mortel and Uggs-N-Rugs. How can anyone make sense of this?--Factchk (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What belies these conflicting claims is that no one opposed Shane Stedman’s trademark in 1971. According to the Fact sheet issued by IP Australia in 2006, all trademarks go through examination and an opposition phase where anyone can file an objection.[3] The examiner allowed it and no opposition was voiced. In 2006, IP Australia stated that there was nothing wrong with the mark at the time and that it was duly allowed to be registered. Obviously, it was not generic at the time.

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

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

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

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

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

How do you feel about rewriting the lede?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The alleged "mass of other POV edits" consisted of (A) simply rearranging the sentences in the article lede to more clearly recognize the leading role Deckers has played in making UGG brand boots a worldwide fashion icon; and (B) removing the word "ugg" from a description of events that occurred decades before the term was coined. The repeated deletion of well-sourced facts regarding dismissal of the Emu Australia lawsuit -- facts that happen to be favorable to Deckers -- by two editors (Donama and TMCk) demonstrates their bias against Deckers. A thorough review of the Emu Australia website confirms that any mention of the word "ugg" has been removed,[4] and it happened at the same time as the settlement. Do you really believe this is a coincidence? And as a result of the settlement, Emu's accusations about false statements to the USPTO have been withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Channel 7 testing

I've removed the section:

Independent testing by Channel 7 in Perth, Western Australia ranked one brand of Australian synthetic ugg boots made in China, Aussie Sheep and Wool Products, best in quality; Deckers Ugg boots, which are also made in China, are the highest quality boots made of genuine sheepskin; and all the Australian made sheepskin boots, such as Emu and Mortels, were ranked behind Deckers.[5] Tony Woolgar of Australia's Textile Clothing and Footwear Union told Channel 7 he was surprised by the results: "The big concern is that some of the ugg boots are actually falling apart because they haven't been glued together properly or the stitching is loose it's of real concern. ... Well I would have thought the Aussie product would have stood up to the test because I have always thought the product we produce in Australia is far superior to the imported products."[6]

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

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

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

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

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

Independent testing by Channel 7 in Perth, Western Australia ranked the Australian synthetic ugg boots made in China higher in quality than Deckers, which are also made in China, and the Australian made sheepskin boots.[22]

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't just the anon editor who thinks they're fake. According to reliable sources cited in this Wikipedia article, there are many in the industry (including Australian manufacturers) who contend that synthetics are "fake uggs."[7] It's indeed strange that when the article said "Australian boots are highest quality," the Australian editors supported it; but now that it says, "Deckers are the highest quality made of sheepskin," at least three Australian editors have lined up against it. Other suggestions of an anti-Deckers bias have been seen previously. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney's statement

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

The UGG trademark has been the subject of dispute in several countries. The trademark for "Ugh-Boots" has been removed from the trademark registry in Australia and any ugg boots may be marketed there using the term "ugg." Outside Australia and New Zealand, UGG (written in capital letters) is a registered trademark of Deckers Outdoor Corporation. Australian attorney and trademark expert David Steward told Channel 7 News in Perth that the Australian manufacturers were fighting a losing battle against Deckers. [8]

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

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

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

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