Talk:Rogan's Shoes

Untitled entitlement

This page is awful, full of spelling mistakes, and reads like an advertisement.

WP:Sofixit. Cheers. --BaronLarf 10:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of Legal Issues

I am helping Rogan's Shoes make an that fit the guidelines specified by Wikipedia, as their past attempts of deleting this section because it was not correct did not follow those guidelines. They would like to change the Legal Issues section as it does not accurately state the results of the lawsuit. I believe the correct wording should read the following: "In 2010 customers filed a class action lawsuit against the company for printing expiration dates of credit cards on receipts, a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. Rogan’s settled the suit by paying $50,000 and assigning to the plaintiff claims against and rights to payments from its insurance company under its insurance policies. The insurance company eventually settled with the plaintiff class."

This information can all be verified here: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/11-2790/11-2790-2012-07-27.pdf?ts=1411041862 Travelers Property Casualty and Travelers Indemnity Company, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Ross GOOD] United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which is already referenced on the page.

I look forward to the discussion of this. Cheeks194th (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cheeks194th: I see you created the page. Are you being paid by Rogan's Shoes? If so, please see Guidelines for paid editing and Paid-contribution disclosure, and disclose that you are being paid.

The previous edits were reverted (by myself) for violations of WP:COI (username Patrogan was a surefire conflict of interest) and WP:Content removal, which requires consensus before deleting reliably sourced content. There was no consensus at any of the attempts to delete the section. I understand that this may be damaging to the company's reputation, but Wikipedia is devoted to a neutral point of view, including both the good and the bad.

I'm not a legal expert, but I see no need to change the wording, only the citation. Per your source, and I quote directly, "Under the terms of the settlement agreement between Good and Rogan Shoes, each class member would receive a pro rata (per receipt) share of the $16 million recovery that is sought". Granted, I'm not a veteran of reading court recaps, but the gist seemed to be that all $16 million was up for grabs, not just the $50,000 that Travelers' had involvement with. If I misunderstood a section, please share, otherwise, the current Bloomberg citation will be replaced with the source you provided. Regards, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Willsome429: Thanks for responding. I am indeed employed with Rogan's Shoes as a member of their tech team. My apologies for not specifying that before as I was unaware that was needed. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Moving on, while we realize Wikipedia is devoted to a neutral point of view, it is our opinion and the finding of the courts, that Rogan's Shoes directly was not responsible for the $16 million. As the cited decision indicates, it is simply inaccurate for the Wikipedia entry to only state “Rogan’s settled the suit for $16 million.” That statement misleads in that it enables the reader to readily conclude that Rogan’s settled for $16 million in cash. The pertinent part of the cited decision states as follows:

"Rogan Shoes eventually settled with Good and the class for $16 million, but not in cash, or at least not Rogan Shoes’ cash. The settlement agreement specified that the judgment would be satisfied only through proceeds from Rogan Shoes’ insurance policies with Travelers, with the exception of an up-front cash payment by Rogan Shoes of $50,000 to cover Good’s legal costs. As part of the settlement agreement, Rogan Shoes assigned to the plaintiffs all of its “claims against and rights to payments from Travelers” under the policies… (Travelers Property Casualty et al v. Ross Good et al (United States Court of Appeals – 7th Circuit) pages 2 and 3."

It is misleading to not include the fact that terms of the settlement involved a $50,000 payment by Rogan Shoes. The entry would not be misleading if the court had only stated the first phrase:

"Rogan Shoes eventually settled with Good and the class for $16 million"

By not including any mention of the following content in the decision after that phrase, the entry misleads:

"but not in cash, or at least not Rogan Shoes’ cash. The settlement agreement specified that the judgment would be satisfied only through proceeds from Rogan Shoes’ insurance policies with Travelers, with the exception of an up-front cash payment by Rogan Shoes of $50,000 to cover Good’s legal costs. As part of the settlement agreement, Rogan Shoes assigned to the plaintiffs all of its “claims against and rights to payments from Travelers” under the policies…"

A fair consensus would be to restate what the cited decision states:

"In 2010 customers filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for printing expiration dates of credit cards on receipts, a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Rogan Shoes eventually settled with the lawsuit plaintiff and the class for $16 million, but not in cash, or at least not Rogan Shoes’ cash. The settlement agreement specified that the judgment would be satisfied only through proceeds from Rogan Shoes’ insurance policies, with the exception of an up-front cash payment by Rogan Shoes of $50,000 to cover the named plaintiff’s legal costs. As part of the settlement agreement, Rogan Shoes assigned to the plaintiffs all of its “claims against and rights to payments from” its insurer under the policies"

I will be returning from vacation in 8 days and can discuss further at that point. Cheeks194th (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cheeks194th: Unfortunately your proposition is neither fair nor consensus. It is not consensus because I oppose it. Why do I oppose it? It isn't fair, as it is a direct violation of a key Wikipedia policy that states to not directly copy or closely paraphrase from other sources. I therefore propose an alternate solution that I hope you will be agreeable to:

"In 2010 customers filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for printing expiration dates of credit cards on receipts, a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Rogan's settled the suit for $16 million, $50,000 of it coming from the company and the rest coming from an insurance agency."

I think the above paragraph checks the boxes that both you and I are looking for. A note of Rogan's limited liability is made and the paragraph still sounds neutral and encyclopedic. Regards, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Willsome429: Here is our response to your comments:

Quoting directly from the cited decision (Citation #4) is not as you indicate a “direct violation of a key Wikipedia policy that states to not directly copy or closely paraphrase from other sources.”

The Wikipedia policy that is linked to your response reveals exceptions in certain situations. A published legal opinion like the Citation #4 is not copyrighted. Published legal opinions are freely cited without restriction. For example, most opinions rendered by courts in the United States quote directly from published legal opinions. They cite, as Citation #4 does, the identity of the case from which the quotation originates.

The link you cite on Copying text from other sources explicitly states that:

It is acceptable to copy text from public domain sources

The phrase “public domain” is a linked term that goes to Wikipedia’s definition of “public domain” which states:

The public domain consists of all the creative works to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply.

Further down on the public domain page under the Government works section it is stated:

Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries.

Clicking on the link to “Works of the United States Government” reveals the following:

A work of the United States government, as defined by the United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the federal government "as part of that person's official duties."[1] In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[2] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain.

Further down on the same page it is stated:

The United States Copyright Office considers "edicts of government," such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents, not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are federal, state, or local as well as to those of foreign governments.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that text from Citation #4, which is a published judicial opinion (prepared by a judge who is a United States employee) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, can quoted or restated on the Rogan’s Shoes Wikipedia page. The final phrase of your suggested modification to the lawsuit entry is not accurate in two respects: First, the modification is not accurate in describing the entity as an “insurance agency”. It is an insurance company. An insurance agency is an agent for an insurance company. An insurance company actually provides insurance. Citation #4 in fact states “the plaintiffs-appellants are two affiliated insurance companies”. Second, in stating that the rest came from an insurance agency, an assumption is being made that the insurance company actually paid the rest of the settlement amount. Citation #4 does not so indicate. It is silent as to what the insurance company actually paid to settle the matter. It could have paid far less than that amount, which typically happens in settlements. The decision states:

As part of the settlement agreement, Rogan Shoes assigned to the plaintiffs all of its “claims against and rights to payments from” its insurer under the policies.

An assignment of Rogan Shoes’ claims and rights to payments from its insurer does not in any way indicate whether the plaintiffs were actually able to collect any money from the insurance company. The assignment gave the plaintiffs the same rights that Rogan Shoes had to make claims against Rogan’s insurers. But the assignment alone does not indicate that any claims the plaintiffs made against Rogan’s insurer were successful. Reciting that “the rest came from any insurance company” indicates something completely different from what the cited decision actually states. A fair consensus would be to restate what the cited decision states:

In 2010 customers filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for printing expiration dates of credit cards on receipts, a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Rogan Shoes eventually settled with the lawsuit plaintiff and the class for $16 million, but not in cash, or at least not Rogan Shoes’ cash. The settlement agreement specified that the judgment would be satisfied only through proceeds from Rogan Shoes’ insurance policies, with the exception of an up-front cash payment by Rogan Shoes of $50,000 to cover the named plaintiff’s legal costs. As part of the settlement agreement, Rogan Shoes assigned to the plaintiffs all of its “claims against and rights to payments from” its insurer under the policies.

That is the fairest resolution because this quotation most accurately reflects the cited decision. The current Wikipedia entry is not accurate and your alternate resolution of that entry is also unfortunately not accurate. The goal of reaching a fair consensus would be best served by our suggested restatement of a portion of the cited decision. Cheeks194th (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cheeks194th: That sounds agreeable for the time being. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Willsome429: I made the changes per our discussion. Thank you for your time in this. Cheeks194th (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)