Battle of Old Fort Wayne

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Libraries Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Literature This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

3607513028@mms.uncc.net

I removed the following, per Wikipedia policy to avoid self-reference. This seems like the sort of thing that belongs in Wikipedia name space. Skittle 20:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 9i9hyfrxhnjfrdygtyt υὰὴ̯ᾼᾶᾲᾼᾐ^[1]—°≥≤≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8324:3E30:A41F:90E2:3A96:689B (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia itself theoretically uses forms of public records in its own right, the user contributions ("contribs") log, article edit histories, and other logs. Although this publicizes pretty much every action that every user and administrator does on Wikipedia, most hold that it is necessary to catch vandalism, maintain order, and make sure that users behave, and is an inherent necessity in having an open-source, freely-editable encyclopedia.

I thought that this article deserved a section about public records in the US (particularly about the differences in accessibility by state), so I added one. Any thoughts from others? Phyrne22 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems both deficient and incorrect: There is no mention of First Amendment right to access court records to inspect and to copy, a common law right, which was re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978). Access to court dockets is listed as governed by the Freedom of Information Act, where in fact it is governed by the First Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.104.7 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The right to access court records is also central to liberty: There is no conceivable way to exercise the Habeas Corpus right, deemed by the late Justice Brennan[8] as "the cornerstone" of the United States Constitution, absent access to court records as public records."

This is a very bold claim, that is not explained in any way. Also no citation is given. Even a google search on the connection between public accessibility of court records and habeas corpus turns up nothing of consequence. I am inclined to believe that it is not only an opinion, but also wrong. 5.199.241.177 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of public records is a key concept to democracy and the rule of law. The article in its current form does injustice to the subject. As only one example: It can be argued that absent court records as public records, the Habeas Corpus right, deemed by the late Justice Brennan as "the cornerstone" of the American Constitution, could not be practiced. It would be worthwhile to cover the origins of the concept and its evolutions as the "common law right to access court records - to inspect and to copy", and the significance of the distinct two rights - to inspect and to copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.104.7 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition currently given at the top of the article is way too narrow to be accurate, and I feel has been made worse by recent edits.

This makes sense as a starting point:

The California Government Code defines public records as, “…any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristic.” For example, public records can include, but are not limited to, papers, books, maps, charts, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, and information stored on a computer. Source.

Agreed?--Elvey (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of controversy sections seems questionable. Author seems to be arguing that data mining is beneficial. 90.157.234.124 (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Public records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070803205616/http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0 to http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]