Talk:Regents of the University of California

message: The clause "the board of regents is treated as the real party in interest for all purposes under California Law" is not supported by the citations in the following sentence in the article:
"As with almost all other public university systems nationwide, the board of regents is treated as the real party in interest for all purposes under California law.[4][5]"
Citation 4 points to the California Code of Civil Procedure section that requires you to sue the "real party at interest," and citation 5 addresses a situation in which the board of regents of a school system is not treated as the real party at interest.  It's somewhat misleading.  I'd fix it, but I wouldn't know where to look.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.132.111.53 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Issue 

message: Since the Regents are being listed in alpha order, it seems like an improvement to include their terms in the list, in case a user is looking for Regents from a specific time period.  There is probably a link somewhere that would provide a chronological list, maybe at the official site--would it be better just to add that link at the top of the list or is it better to do what I did with Bagley?
--Hjal 18:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Question 

message: It's clear that many UC Regents are notable for other reasons, but does appointment to the Regents alone make a person notable?  The current list of Regents (I assume that they are mostly the current appointments) are almost all red links, as is William T. Bagley, who I just added.  He is clearly notable, and I'll do a page for him, but I'm not sure about the others.  Some of the appointments in the past have been political party activists or major donors given the appointment as a reward, I think.  If they weren't notable already, do they become notable becasue of the appointment, even if they do nothing that stands out while on the Board?
--Hjal 18:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a Californian, but given the scope and power of this board, I would think that all the members are per se notable.  However, a lot of current and past regents don't have articles.  What I've done is to reorganize the list of current regents, followed by a separate list of notable former regents.  The standard for the second list, operationally, is having an article, in other words, there shouldn't be red links there.  If you find or create an article about a former regent, add them to the list.  Does that make sense? Kestenbaum 15:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Regents? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Regents of the University of California. 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://occupyucdavis.org/documents/regents-fact-sheet
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Regents of the University of California. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414034939/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regbios/lansing.htm to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regbios/lansing.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414035240/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regbios/varner.html to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regbios/varner.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917142809/http://www.californiagovernors.ca.gov/h/biography/governor_9.html to http://californiagovernors.ca.gov/h/biography/governor_9.html
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) 06:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If you look carefully at the Sacramento News-Press article cited by User:Hydrogencat2020, the author merely juxtaposes the regents' mismanagement of university money with tuition hikes but is careful to not link them causally, while User:Hydrogencat2020's edits more expressly draw the connection in a way not found in the source article.  That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Any objections before I take out the trash? --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost two years have gone by and I haven't seen any improvement.  Again, any objections before I fix this? I plan to get around to this sometime later this year. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections after two years, I just took out the trash. No one has cited any sources that directly make that causal connection, meaning it's original research in violation of WP:NOR.  I have left one of the mentions to regent investment conflicts-of-interest later in the article which doesn't purport to connect such conflicts to later tuition hikes.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning to remove violations of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]] inserted by [[User:Hydrogencat2020]] 

message: The problem is that the Organic Act originally named the board (and in turn the corporation) the "Regents of the University of California" (the quotation mark comes after the definite article) but Bylaw 10 puts the quotation mark before the definite article, meaning that the word "the" is part of the official name.  The official name in the California Secretary of State records includes the definite article "the".  
So I'm wondering if it's time to move this article to a title that matches the official name: "The Regents of the University of California".  This would be similar to how the article for the leading newspaper of record in the United States is titled The New York Times. I am fine either way with my proposal or with keeping the article as is.  What do other people think? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The "the" of a title is only rarely included in the article name when it is indispensable to the name and its identity, which I don't think is the case here. Just visit the Regents website and you'll see that the copyright at the bottom is merely "© Regents of the University of California" and that most references to the institution are as the "Board of Regents" and not "The Regents of the U of C". I don't think there is a case to be made here for including the "the" officially in the article name. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point that the Regents themselves don't use the definite article on the footer on their own Web site. Very well, I guess we keep the current title for now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe it's time to move this article to match the official title