Talk:Ugg boots

message: My impression is that in their zeal to avoid providing promotional copy for UGG Australia, the Australian editors are unintentionally turning this Wikipedia article into promotional copy for the brand's Australian competitors. All of the photos in the article show Australian made boots. The first paragraph is devoted exclusively to Australia. The second paragraph mentions Australian manufacturers first, followed by a brief mention of Deckers. The third paragraph again mentions Australian manufacturers first, followed by a brief mention of Deckers. Without the edits I've added recently, and with continued resistance by Australian editors, one would get the idea that it's the Australian manufacturers who own the world market. But all Australian manufacturers combined equal 5.9% of Deckers sales. Why is it so hard to make the article reflect this simple fact? Why is there so much resistance to the idea of accuracy? Reliable 1too (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is predominately about the style of boots, rather than a single manufacturer, there being dedicated articles about Deckers and UGG Australia. As the style is identified as an Australian style, of Australian origin, an Australian focus makes some sense. However, in terms of weight, UGG Australia/Deckers is mentioned in some way in almost every paragraph in the article - all three paragraphs in the lead mention Deckers, they are covered in the second paragraph in "History" out of the three, almost all of "International sales" is focused on them, and of course the trademark dispute concerns Deckers. In turn, Australian brands make it into one paragraph in the lead, are mentioned in history, and have almost no mention in "International sales". In terms of coverage, the bulk of this article seems to be focused on Deckers/UGG Australia.- Bilby (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As Bilby explained, we try not to promote any specific company, especially in an article about a generic (foot-wear)-term. In other words, we try to avoid PW and keep it more neutral.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: An admirable goal, but the result has been a promotion of several other specific companies. Adding a mention that the Australian firms add up to 5.9% of Deckers, and that Deckers dominates the market, is a step in the right direction but it's only one step. A few days ago, the entire lead section made no mention of Deckers' prominence and led readers to believe that Luda Productions was the world's largest. Recognizing that Deckers turned a cottage industry into a billion dollar industry, and owns well over 90% of the market, is like recognizing that Germany is the team to beat in World Cup competition. It isn't the least bit promotional. It's just a statement of fact. Reliable 1too (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "A few days ago, the entire lead section made no mention of Deckers' prominence". Before you came in it did and only for a short time it didn't b/c it wasn't sourced, just as it wasn't when you first introduced your edit.TMCk (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a "PW" ... I have no idea what that means. I see the efforts by others here as probably well intentioned but having the unfortunate effect of providing ammunition for lawsuits. The defendants in the Dangdang case in China were citing all sorts of Internet sources, claiming them as proof that the word is generic worldwide. Do you see a possibility that this article might be used as evidence in such a manner? I do. Reliable 1too (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A Wiki article as evidence in a court for what? LOL... or is it meant as a legal threat?TMCk (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

text:  PW is probably a reference to Phoenix and Winslow, a now indefinitely blocked sock-puppeteer who continually tried to introduce advertising for Deckers into this article. And please strike-through your comment about lawsuits, otherwise you are at risk of being blocked yourself - please read WP:NLT. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I think you may have missed the core point - Decker's is not marginalised in the article, but instead is covered in the vast bulk of it. If a single manufacturer is being promoted in this article, it is Deckers. not one of the Australian manufacturers. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

text: UGG Australia brand boots are in the lead in three places. Comparing boots to people is not especially helpful here, nor is speculating about user profiles.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're "in the lead," just barely. Buried at the end of a couple of paragraphs. Comparing boots to people is very helpful because it highlights what I suggest is going on here. As I said when I started this section of the discussion, I think it's unintentional but the results are very clear. And the results don't make the Wikipedia project look NPOV. Reliable 1too (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, people aren't going to take you seriously if you say consumer brand boots are equivalent to living people, they just aren't. Take that however you want to. And, as you value NPOV, you should also consider that the source you added, , can not be considered any kind of reliable independent source.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Prejudice against a corporation is reasonably comparable to prejudice against a race of people, Elaquete, at least for the purpose of editing an online encyclopedia about both. It may be residing at the conscious or the subconscious level. I prefer to believe the latter, assuming good faith. And the other sources I added, such as this one, are quality sources and were kept. Reliable 1too (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it you that originally provided the Peoria Journal Star source?__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor provided it years ago, then it was removed and buried in the archives by an Australian editor per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My contribution was digging it up. Reliable 1too (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But this source didn't mention the exact figure 95% that was in the article, and it was buried years ago. How could a previously uninvolved editor know to find that specific source out of the thousands of messages that this article has generated? Your story doesn't add up. You also can't pretend to not know who Phoenix and Winslow is after tracing back through the archives to here. There is some major league quacking going on here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Another false accusation. Please stop it. The acronym "PW" was used, not "Phoenix and Winslow" and I failed to make the connexion. If the acronym "P&W" had been used instead, I probably would have understood since Phoenix and Winslow is all over the archives. The discussion of the Journal Star was easy to spot in the archives and track down. And if mentioning litigation that's broadly discussed in these articles is a "legal threat," how are we supposed to get any work done? Put your knives away and let's work on the article. Reliable 1too (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indent your posts correctly.  Continuing to not do so might be considered disruptive. - Nick Thorne talk 11:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

text:  you made this comment  I see the efforts by others here as probably well intentioned but having the unfortunate effect of providing ammunition for lawsuits. on 30 June. Wikipedia isnt about writing history according to Deckers its about writing information based on information in reliable sources should others chose to use the same sources in court cases is not our concern. I liberally took that as meaning the Wikipedia should censoring information and only writing the story of Ugg boots as Deckers would like it to be. Yet when you read that sentence it can also be read as implying that editors here who dont observe the Deckers preferred line could face legal action such an ambigious meaning is both against WP:NPOV and/or WP:LEGAL. Your suggestion that you are talking about article content is really laughable as you have maintained through this discussion that you believe Deckers isnt getting sufficient coverage or prominence both in the written text and in the photographs and that this discussion has made no refernce to legal matters within the article. Under the circumstances I suggest you withdraw that comment Gnangarra 11:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I see things haven't changed that much around here...... HI y'all. Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional copy for Australian firms 

message: In the German Wikipedia we got the question, what is the correct pronunciation for ugg? -- Kürschner (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as in 'ugly'. Akld guy (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, merry Christmas time! -- Kürschner (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ugg boots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/trademarks/hearings/245662_060116.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331154408/http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/content.aspx?id=1771 to http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/content.aspx?id=1771
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009053540/http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/madrid/ to http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/madrid/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the international sales section, more than halfway into the first paragraph, it reads “in 1979 Jensen handed over his share...” 
This is the first time Jensen is mentioned, we never get any context or explanation for this person. 
This is my first comment, sorry for any mistakes.
:Thank you for that observation. I have no idea who Jensen is either, so I have added a "Who?" tag to the mention of the name in the article. That section is very poorly sourced, with mentions of the Los Angeles Magazine being linked to Wikipedia's article about it, rather than the relevant edition of the magazine itself. That is less than useless. I may remove those "references" and ask for real citations. The only improvement you might make to your comment would be to sign it, by typing ~~~~ at the end. Otherwise, welcome aboard! HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I found we have another, overlapping article called UGG (brand). It tells us who Doug Jensen is. I have update this article a little to explain. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Jensen?