text:
Talk:Partitions of Poland

Misleading title
Why the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth are simply referred to as the “Partitions of Poland”? The last time I checked, the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania did not escape the fate of partitions and ceased to exist the same way the Kingdom of Poland did. The title is misleading. Despite Poland’s much greater political influence, Polish being lingua franca as well as the Crown residing in Krakow, the country nonetheless was a bi-federation comprised of two equal political entities – the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It’s the same as taking Hungary out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire title or referring to the United Kingdom as England. The whole argument of most historical sources referring to these events as the "Partitions of Poland" does sound a bit wishy-washy to me. SeriousThinker (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (BST)
 * Wikipedia uses names for historical events which are predominant in English literature. Marcelus (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

We will start in February 2022 with the Polish language reference in the book, Pubic Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US (Racino, 2014 http://www.crcpress.com) to the destruction of my grandmother's (babci's) village and church in Poland via Uncle Joe Bien, son of Julia Centka Bien. Julia Centka Bien is the mother of World War II Polish American Veterans Mary Bien Civiok, Louis Bien, Bernard Bien, William Bien, and Joseph Bien, two of whom began the Steczko Post in Rome, New York, USA. Julia Bien passed in 1974 while her granddaughter Julie Ann Racino was attending Cornell University on Dean's Scholarship and Vice President of Phillip's House on North Campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:A04A:25F1:88E9:1248 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

 * It must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Current name violates WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania. If Poland published many books with false naming, it still does not change the fact that it was a DUAL STATE. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Improper naming
It's wrong to call it "Partitions of Poland". It should be called "Partitions of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", because it represents the partitions of the commonwealth, not any Poland-only divisions of land. 151.225.149.106 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the reliable sources typically call it "partitions of Poland" Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, various reliable sources call it both but "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" is more historically accurate and politically neutral, therefore it should be changed. Sources calling it "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth": [1 ][2 ][3 ][3 ] ...and many more here: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22partitions+of+the+Polish-lithuanian+commonwealth%22#q=%22partitions+of+the+Polish-lithuanian+commonwealth%22&tbm=bks Kaukutis talk 03:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Poeticbent talk  04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Book search:
 * 1) "partitions of the Polish-lithuanian commonwealth"  About 85 results
 * 2) "partitions of Poland"  About 30,800 results

See old discussion at Talk:Partitions_of_Poland/Archive_2. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Restricting access
Since this article has become the aim of repeated vandalism by unregistered user with IP 60.231.70.79 (it's not his first involvement in vandalism, see his talk page: talk), I suggest that the access to editing this article would be restricted to registered users only. Kaukutis (talk) comment added 00:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chill out . People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Read the Google Book search from above. Thanks, Poeticbent  talk  06:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Poland vs Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
If partitioning affected only Poland why Lithuania did not remain independent and found itself a part of Russia? ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Frankiv (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Inaccessibility to the Color Blind
I appreciate that it is not easy to find a map for every article where it is needed, let alone a quality map. The map entitled "Elimination" in this article is actually, a quality map, but it has a major deficiency: its choice of colors.

This map needs eight colors in order to convey the history of the partitions. And ideally, those eight should actually be based upon just three base colors, with three shades of color A for Prussia's annexations, three shades of color B for Russia's annexations, and two shades of Color C for Austria's annexations. Unfortunately, the three base colors chosen here are blue, green and turquoise. Given that turquoise is clearly a shade of blue (and some shades of turquoise are arguably shades of green), this renders the maps difficult for even a person with full color sight to immediately take in. And for some persons with certain types of color blindness, it would be literally impossible to make out.

It would be nice if we could have a map that used red or orange instead of the turquoise. That still would not solve everyone's problems, but it would increase the accessibility for at least some folks. Un sch  ool  05:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Looks like the maps below were produced by only one user with notable consistency of color. However, I can try to alter them in Photoshop to conform with your ideas using pastel shades of blue for Prussia, pastel shades of green for Austria and pastel red for Russia. I guess, Poland would be in shades of sandy yellow perhaps. Doing this will probably take some time. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.  Poeticbent  talk 05:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 * ✅.  Poeticbent  talk 16:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OMG, I can't believe you did that--and so fast! Thank you very much; it's 100% better!  Un  sch  ool  02:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary table clarity — with or without flags
I added flag icons to the summary table earlier today (with ), as I found it a rather complex table and pretty hard to parse. Use of flag icons can be controversial on Wikipedia sometimes, so it didn't surprise me all that much that someone reverted them — in this case with  and a mention of WP:ICONDECORATION.

To my mind, the flags are justifiable as that policy says Icons ... should ... serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, but that's clearly a subjective call. Rather than bothering with a 3RR dance on something that's really not that big a deal either way, in the scheme of thing, I figure I should ask editors' opinions here to see if there's a clear consensus either way. (Obviously, no consensus would mean the article should stay as-is — the status quo always wins.)

Without flags:

With flags:

Thoughts anyone? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Looks too much like the Rio 2016 medal count, while in fact the partitions were a dark chapter of history that undoubtedly inspired the further European wars of territorial acquisitions.  Poeticbent  talk 15:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Partitions of Poland. 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/20051214183008/http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/polish_army.html to http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/polish_army.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205130036/http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/constitution.html to http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/classroom/constitution.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524032930/http://www.historycy.pl/Strony/Artykuly/2006%2001/Rozbiory.html to http://www.historycy.pl/Strony/Artykuly/2006%2001/Rozbiory.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) 05:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This article should be renamed
Article is about Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth partitions, not about just Poland. Craft37by (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Article name is not historically accurate
Considering wikipedia is widely used for scientific research purposes, every article reaches for the goal to be as accurate as possible, lessening any political or romanticized influence of every wikipedia article. Referring to “Partitions of Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth” as only partitions of Poland is not only inaccurate, it’s misleading as well, undermining the main purpose of wikipedia - to enlighten people and help them to learn accurate history if they have been mislead. Gustasv (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Title of "The Partitions of Poland" is incorrect
Naming the Partitions of the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which is historically accurate, the Partitions of Poland, would be incorrect. If "Poland" was partitioned, Lithuania would have been left. But no, in the Partitions, Lithuania was cut away as well. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth would not be named so if Lithuania was not a active part; the Commonwealth is the union of two equal nations: Poland amd Lithuania. It is like this: If I ate two apples, I wouldn't say, "I ate and apple." I'd say, "I ate two apples." If I partitioned a union of two nations, (e.g., Union of 1 and 2) I'd say, "I partitioned the Union of 1 and 2," not, "I partitioned 1." Saying the Partitions of Poland would be misspelling history, insulting the equality between Lithuania and Poland, and giving incorrect information to people seeking knowledge of the historical event, in which a union of two nations were partitioned. It would also cause great confusion if the article name was "the Partitions of Poland" when explaining the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In short, the title is incorrect, and should be changed to "the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." Please. And thank you. MarperMay (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 * From 1791 (the Constitution of 3 May 1791) Lithuania was a province within Poland, as the Grand Duchy had been officially abolished. Secondly, no English source of the era referred to the event as the "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", as the equality between the two states had been inexistent since the early 18th century. Lithuania was annexed by Russia as a province and became a governorate, whereas Congress Poland remained a kingdom. Sorry, this was already discussed previously. Oliszydlowski (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 * "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" is the correct title. The three-stage partition is called "partitions of Poland" in Polish nationalistic usage and as a shortcut term. What was partitioned was the Polish-Lithuanian state, in the Grand Duchy sense of "Lithuanian" (including also modern Belarus). Modern English sources clearly refer to the Polish-Lithuanian state, not just Poland. The creators of the constitution tried to preserve the vanishing statehood by making it more centralized. Congress Poland originated from the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw and its existence is not relevant to the original partitions. It's not about the equality of two states, but about the fundamental nature of the state that was partitioned from 1772. If just Poland was partitioned, then the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" was only "Poland after the Union of Lublin". Holding a vote on this issue would be a good idea.Orczar (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The term "Partition of Poland" is based on the usage in English literature, it's not uncommon to refer to PLC simply as "Poland", which isn't fundamentally wrong and it's based on the historical sources, where the whole state is called "Commonwealth" (Rzeczpospolita) or "Poland". We can of course hold the voting, but as I said the name isn't fundamentally wrong or misleading. Marcelus (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 * It's not that it is wrong or misleading, it's just not inclusive.Orczar (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 * As much as I see that it is not inclusive, older and contemporary sources use the term "Partitions of Poland" much more frequently. You can request an Request for Comments (RfC) and see what other Wikipedians think, but Wikipedia should not deviate from publications with its own titles and interpretations. Furthermore, I do not see anything [quote] "nationalistic" about this usage so please refrain from making such claims. Personally, I don't mind either 'partitions of Poland' or 'Poland-Lithuania'. Both are correct, but one may be interpreted as more correct by each user. Merangs (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Fourth partition"
In my limited experience this seems to be usually used to mean 1939, when it is used: if that's true, then we should probably note that. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is already discussed (there is a dedicated section to this concept at Partitions_of_Poland), although if you have a source that would confirm your experience, we can certainly add it and make it more clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Newbie question - GIS Maps
Does anyone know of a GIS map for the partitions of Poland that has layers by year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PegATL (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment: the current name of this article violates the WP:NPOV rule and Assume good faith principle
The name of this article must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The current name clearly violates the WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania which following the Union of Lublin in 1569 co-existed with the Kingdom of Poland for centuries and was partitioned during the same partitions described in this article. Pay attention that the rulers of the state constantly held two titles: King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. There even is a separate article Russian Partition which mostly covers the situation of the territory of the partitioned Lithuania. If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATE. It is the responsibility of these authors for spreading false propaganda which is incompatible with the assuming good faith principle. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. Such horrendous Polonization of the Lithuanian history has no place in Wikipedia. At most, the title "Partitions of Poland" can be nothing more than a second title (like in Russian Partition article). The Google search offers over 35 600 results for name "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", so it is historically accurate and widely used. In any case, the truth is more important than various numbers. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've pulled the tag for several reasons. First, RfC is not for discussing page renames; second, your RFC statement is not neutrally worded and is also far from brief. Its length also makes it unrecognisable to, causing breakage at Requests for comment/History and geography.
 * You may continue discussion, just not as an RfC. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So how this violation of WP:NPOV can be solved? Before any actions can be taken, there must be a clear support in a discussion, but now you blocked such discussion. It is not possible to seek assistance in various noticeboards without RfC. If you scroll through this talk page - you will easily notice that there are many other complains about this. This violation of WP:NPOV must be finally solved. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have not blocked discussion: discussion can, indeed should continue, just not in the context of an RfC. There is nothing at either WP:BEFOREMOVING or WP:RM that indicates that an RfC should be opened. -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME even if it is not entirely accurate. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Partitions of Poland → Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth – The name of this article must be changed to Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The current name clearly violates the WP:NPOV rule because it falsely presents that the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was just Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, this way completely removing Grand Duchy of Lithuania which following the Union of Lublin in 1569 co-existed with the Kingdom of Poland for centuries and was partitioned during the same partitions described in this article. Pay attention that the rulers of the state constantly held two titles: King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. There even is a separate article Russian Partition which mostly covers the situation of the territory of the partitioned Lithuania. If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATE. It is the responsibility of these authors for spreading false propaganda which is incompatible with the assuming good faith principle. So this name should be renamed as soon as possible to comply with the WP:NPOV rule. Such horrendous Polonization of the Lithuanian history has no place in Wikipedia. At most, the title "Partitions of Poland" can be nothing more than a second title (like in Russian Partition article). The Google search offers over 35 600 results for name "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", so it is historically accurate and widely used. In any case, the truth is more important than various numbers. I can see that somebody reverted such page move performed on 12 December 2021, so please ensure that in the future other users would not be allowed to continue violating the basic rules and principles of Wikipedia in this article's name. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

 * This is clearly not uncontroversial – the article has been moved several times and there have been numerous contentious discussions on the talk page – so a full RM is needed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A quick ngrams search shows that shows that "Partition[s] of Poland" is way more common than "Partition[s] of the Polish". Considering that the latter would encompass all mentions of "partition[s] of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", I'm not really seeing any evidence that historians actually describe (or have ever described) this in a way other than the Partition[s] of Poland. The argument that If Poland published many books, journals and other publications with false naming and some other authors began using such false name, it still does not change the historical fact that it was a DUAL STATE is asking us to ignore reliable sources. Since WP:NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, seems to actually cut against asking us to ignore the vast majority of RS published throughout all of history on this topic, I oppose the move. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME does not overlap WP:NPOV rule and Assume good faith principle which are essential in Wikipedia. Sources which use term "Partitions of Poland" automatically raises questions about WP:NPOV, so such sources cannot deny the rules of Wikipedia. Without such horrendous violation of the rules, obviously we could count on the WP:COMMONNAME rule, but now we are talking about CENSORING one of the countries name. Let me remind you that What Wikipedia is not. The Poles would clearly raise concerns about WP:NPOV if we would rename this article into "Partitions of Lithuania" by completely removing the Poland's name, so I cannot see any valid reasons, apart from widely spread distorted term, why the vice versa process should be tolerated here. Consequently, if this voting will be blocked, I will move this question into higher processes of wiki as it is a clear violation of multiple fundamental rules and principles of Wikipedia, satisfying some kind of nationalistic desires (Polish Empire never actually existed). So lets sort this out peacefully and quickly here because it will be inevitably solved anyway. Polonization has no place in wiki. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A few things:
 * WP:AGF is a Wikipedia behavioral guideline. The point of the policy is to be charitable to other editors. Your attempt to apply AGF to the substantial content issue of article titling, however, seems to be confused. If you can point to any of the text in WP:AGF that says that we should specifically ignore the choice of words an author of reliable sources when we think they made a mistake, be my guest, but I can't find any. Moreover, doing so would be an extraordinary overreach that would violate our policy on no original research, since it would be up to the subjective Wikipedia editor to infer that the author actually intended to use the longer name but chose not to because of a mistake; we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
 * As I stated above, WP:NPOV means that we should represent, proportionately, the views published among reliable sources. That there are several ways to refer to the Commonwealth (as "Poland" or as "Poland-Lithuania") and that the extremely dominant view is to abbreviate it as "Poland", actually cuts against your proposed move.
 * WP:COMMONNAME, which is part of the article titling policy, states that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Moreover, WP:NPOVNAME states Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. In this case, there is strong evidence to conclude that "Partition[s] of Poland" is effectively a proper name for the series of events that occurred and resulted in the destruction of the Commonwealth:
 * A JSTOR search for "Partition of Poland" yields 3198 results;
 * A JSTOR search for "Partitions of Poland" yields 1573 results;
 * A JSTOR search for "Partition of Poland-Lithuania" yields 39 results;
 * A JSTOR search for "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" yields 28 results;
 * A JSTOR search for "Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" yields 59 results;
 * A JSTOR search for "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" yields 54 results.
 * The appeal to WP:NOTCENSORED is trivially misapplied; the titling of an article does not constitute censorship when the body of the article explains exactly what is going on. The title "Vietnam War" does not constitute censorship of the fact that there were bombings and combat in Cambodia and Laos as well, despite not listing Cambodia and Laos in the article title. We are not engaging in censorship of the existence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by referring to the partition just as the vast majority of historians have.
 * As is shown above, the term "Partition[s] of Poland" (4735 total results) is orders of magnitude more common than either "Partition[s] of Poland-Lithuania" (67 results) or "Partition[s] of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (113 results). It's quite clearly the WP:COMMONNAME among academic reliable sources. It also appears to be the sole widely accepted proper name that refers to a series of historical events; using the title is well-established among reliable sources. No policy-based reason given in support of the the move stands up to basic scrutiny, while there are very real policy-based reasons to keep the article exactly where it currently is. While one might not like how historians and others describe the topic, we are not here to right great wrongs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, but there is a famous proverb: do not try to invent a bicycle once again. By writing such long justifications why Lithuania should be discriminated versus Poland you are doing just like that. The issue is simple and I will repeat the solution once again: if it was a dual state, then we must include both countries names because these partitions partitioned TWO COUNTRIES, not one. Or this article should be copy-pasted into another article named Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but it would be truly pointless to have two articles about the same thing which can be covered in a single article under a completely neutral name Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Support. I've read Pofka's rationale and it seems pretty solid to me. I'm of course open to changing my vote if someone presents a convincing argument to the contrary, so please by all means chip in. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose; WP:COMMONNAME used by a vast majority of published sources, books, journals and essays. The term 'Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth' is accurate, but already embedded in the lead section. Hence, I see the renaming of this article pointless. Merangs (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Google search "Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania", "Partitions of Lithuania" does not link to this article, so it is a must. Term "Polish–Lithuanian" is inevitable in the context of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth if we seek for WP:NPOV. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Note - ... here is the issue - Google search:
 * partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth = 31,500 results

see also old discussion regarding the move - -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * partitions of the Poland = 12,500,000 results -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I already said before that we cannot put priority on numbers when they are clearly harmful in this case. Many Lithuanian language sources use term "Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės padalijimai" (Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), however the term is obviously incorrect in a broader context. The same is with various Polish sources of which are plenty that are using term "Partitions of Poland". We are speaking not about the most common name, but about clear violations of the WP:NPOV, Assume good faith, What Wikipedia is not. This way google search "Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" does not link to this important article. So the Grand Duchy of Lithuania never existed? I will be simply forced to seek for assistance in higher wiki processes if this Polish nationalism and incomprehensible desire to humiliate Lithuania will be tolerated here. So lets save each others time and forget harmful nationalism. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pofka, the issue is that the vast majority of English language sources use the term partition of Poland for short, such as this one.... But, yes, you are right, the accurate term should be the partitions of the P/L Commonwealth. This is a broader issue that is also discussed on my talk page here -->. I’m intending to address it later today. Pinging the other folks --> Marcelus and Cukrakalnis -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of these English sources were published by Polish authors or those who based their works on Polish sources. As I already mentioned before, some Lithuanian sources use term "Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės padalijimai" (Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), however such name is incorrect and we mostly use "Abiejų Tautų Respublikos padalijimai" (Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) or simply "ATR padalijimai". Pay attention that the Lithuanian Wikipedia article is called Abiejų Tautų Respublikos padalijimai as well. It would be completely insane if the article in the Lithuanian Wikipedia would be renamed to "Lenkijos padalijimai" (Partitions of Poland). -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Support, because what Po  fk  a  says is true and solid. I would also add that a possible solution would be naming the article to "Partitions of Poland–Lithuania", which has about 398,000 results  . This takes into account everything Pofka said, in addition to being shorter and more frequently used than the name he proposed.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If we're going by pure google results (which is not always best because it isn't guaranteed to pick up only RS), it's important to actually put the search term in quotes, since otherwise it is going to pick up all articles with "partitions", "of", and "Poland-Lithuania", even when the three aren't placed next to each other. If we're going to look at pure google results (which is probably an inferior measure to the JSTOR searches above), we find the relevant terms based off of their search ranks:
 * "Partition of Poland": 448,000 results
 * "Partitions of Poland": 211,000 results
 * "Partition of Poland-Lithuania": 37,800 results
 * "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania": 12,700 results
 * "Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth": 6 results
 * "Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth": 2 results
 * We could also look at the same searches without quotes used in the search term (a methodology I question but used by in their !vote). This methodology actually refutes the above !voter's reading of the common name, giving us a similar breakdown to basically every other search methodology used in this discussion:
 * Partition of Poland: 12,100,000 results
 * Partitions of Poland: 4,230,000 results
 * Partition of Poland-Lithuania: 1,180,000 results
 * Partitions of Poland-Lithuania: 378,000 results
 * Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: 263,000 results
 * Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: 73,000 results
 * The above shows that Partition[s] of Poland dominates google search results in both methodologies by an order of magnitude relative to all other proposed titles terms. (I prefer JSTOR searching, since the search is better inasmuch as it's going to be a search of reliable sources as opposed to a search of the whole internet, but the results align in this case.) In any case, there's clearly a WP:COMMONNAME, no matter how you'd like to measure it, and it's not one with a hyphen. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is that we are NOT "going by pure google results" (which should have been clear had you read what I wrote attentively). Mhawk10 clearly misunderstood the essence of what I was saying.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that we shouldn't go by pure google results (I note this explicitly; read the whole thing), but that the google query you used in your explanation above doesn't actually provide anything substantial against the policy-based WP:COMMONNAME argument. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My main point was that Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth could be shortened to Partitions of Poland–Lithuania (e.g. for brevity). That was all. I was not saying that we should go by pure google results. You assumed that my methodology followed WP:COMMONNAME, which it did not. Perhaps you got that impression because I mentioned 'results', but I mentioned them to show that my suggestion of using the term "Poland-Lithuania" was not something I created out of thin air. I hope I made this clear.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lithuania (population: 2,795,680; GDP: $107 billion), Poland (population: 38,179,800; GDP: $720 billion). It is clear why pro-Polish term overshadows Lithuania. Mass usage of such term is a national discrimination and pretention that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania never existed and was never partitioned. We need correct name according to the rules, not the most common name if it's obviously false. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose Clear case of WP:COMMONNAME across all academic sources. COMMONNAME can trump technical accuracy: it's the reason we call is Invasion of Poland and not Invasion of the Republic of Poland or Unification of Germany and not Unification of the German Empire. Incidentally, COMMONNAME is the reason we call it Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth rather than Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, its formal name. Additionally, the Commonwealth changed its name to simply Commonwealth of Poland in 1791, so it would be inaccurate to call the Third Partition (which took place in 1795) a partition of Poland-Lithuania anyways. Generally, the term Poland was used more often in history than Poland-Lithuania (see Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth). Eccekevin (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely non-sense arguments. Lithuania never was Poland. Period. So we cannot say that it is the same as "Germany" and "German Empire". Polish Empire never existed. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I would like to ask user Pofka kindly not to use arguments like "Poles spread false history". Firstly, it is not substantive, and secondly, it is a false accusation. The country we are talking about was commonly called "Poland", "Polish Kingdom" or "Commonwealth of Poland". This is the reason why the name "partition of Poland" is so popular in English literature, it is not the result of some anti-Lithuanian conspiracy of Polish historians. Marcelus (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. Lithuania never was called Poland. As I thought, this discussion is being crashed with non-sense arguments by some users who want to secure Poland's superiority, this way ignoring the fundamental rules and principles of Wikipedia. Civilized approach is failing. So this question will clearly be moved to higher processes of wiki and will be solved there by administrators. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point you are currently disregarding trusted sources, publications and search results, which you question and state that they are false because of someone's nationality (regardless whether written by Poles or English speakers). I understand your perception of being inclusive and factual, but they way in which you express your views is uncivil and hints at anti-Polish sentiment. The Template index/Moving/Requested states that the discussion must be "succinct and civil" and currently it is neither. Moreover, you present facts and turn them into illegitimate claims; I do not see how 35,600 results for "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" vs 448,000 results for "Partition of Poland" is the reason to rename the article. Rightly so, based purely on valid statistics, the title "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth" or "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" should be embedded as a second title in the lead section. Merangs (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Process Partitions of Poland can be a separate process like the Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Pay attention that this article describes the fourth partition of Poland, which is absolutely not related with Lithuania. Many authors, especially Polish, concentrates to the process how Poland was partitioned, so uses phrase "Partitions of Poland" and in such context it is alright (Lithuanian authors are using a vice versa approach when writing about Lithuania's history). However, this article is a mixture of both of these processes and this joint process is called "Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth". Statistics of bare numbers do not show the view points of the authors and what they are actually analyzing in their publications. Otherwise, we must transfer all information about partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania into a separate article Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Nevertheless, I do not want to perform such brutal intervention, so we can fix it by simply renaming this article and avoiding two very similar articles about two very closely related processes. Poland is not Lithuania, so Partitions of Poland are not Partitions of Lithuania. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned here, the likely reason behind the extensive spread of the term "Partitions of Poland" in English is that the Commonwealth was commonly called Poland, particularly in the 18th century when it was erased from the map; perhaps this quote will help: By the early eighteenth century, if not earlier, the Commonwealth was referred to ubiquitously as 'Poland' . . And there are no two "separate processes" (Lithuania and Poland) in English literature – the phrase "Partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" is almost non-existent in English sources:
 * google search yields only 2–4 results, including one translation from context.reverso.net
 * google schoolar – 0 results ("partitions of Poland" – 6,630 results)
 * google books – 4 results, of which probably only one is valid
 * Please check this map (nr 5, p. 151) in "Atlas of World History" published by University of Oxford in 2007 – you can see that partitions of the whole Commonwealth are described as "Partitions of Poland 1772-95"; and Encyclopedia Britannica published in 2008, Lithuania entry (p. 1123): Lithuania was acquired by Russia in the Third Partition of Poland in 1795. It seems clear that what English encyclopedic sources mean by "partitions of Poland" are the partitions of the Commonwealth. And it's unlikely this term is used by other authors in the meaning of a separate process that encompasses only lands of the Polish Crown or at least the number of such cases must be few.--Hedviberit (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In Lithuanian literature we have quite often used terms "Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės padalijimai" (partitions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) and "LDK padalijimai", this way mostly ignoring the Polish territorial part. Once again: Lithuania is not Poland. Never was and never will be. Of course, Lithuania is overshadowed by much larger Poland, however censoring Lithuania's name is like censoring Hungary's name in Austria-Hungary, so this absurd will have to be fixed because there are absolutely no grounds to treat the Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth term as invalid, unlike the Partitions of Poland. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * the whole country was called "Poland", including Lithuanian part that's just a historical fact. And the only reason why this term of partition functions in English literature. I didn't get the impression that anyone involved in the discussion cared about Polish superiority or anything like that. So just stop talking about it, because it's starting to border on personal attacks and anti-Polish sentiment. Personally, I don't mind renaming articles for consistency, the name "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is generally accepted on Wikipedia to describe this country. But it must be supported by sources and factual discussion, and not the result of political or national sympathies and antipathies. Marcelus (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence clearly show your desire to spread false Polish superiority propaganda and thereafter you unreasonably complain. If you strongly lack knowledge about the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I recommend you and other users to read such things as Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations (1791). The only period when Lithuania's name was erased from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was from 3 May 1791 to 20 October 1791, but that Guarantee fixed it. That's it. Before that and after the Guarantee Lithuania existed as part of the dual state. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that you just don't understand what I'm talking about. But I repeat again if you insult me again I will report your behavior. You know I have done it once before and I may do it again. And you have a history of insulting other users who have a different opinion. Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Grab a book about history. Here are some maps if you haven't seen them before:

 * This is Poland? -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that Grand Duchy of Lithuania didn't exist, but that the whole country was simply called Poland more than often. To give you some examples:
 * * Treaty of Perpetual Friendship between Russia and the Commonwealth (1768): ...In the name of the Holy inseparable Trinity. Although between the Most Eminent Commonwealth of Poland, and the Empire of all Russia, happily continues according to the treaty of 1686 eternal peace, true friendship, permanent harmony, and good neighborliness...
 * * Treaty of friendship and alliance between Prussia and the Commonwealth (1790): ...The Royal House of Prussia and the Electorate of Brandenburg, maintaining since ancient times, with the Most Excellent Kings of the Commonwealth of Poland, the closest ties of friendship and alliance and His Majesty the King of Prussia giving the Most Excellent Commonwealth of Poland the actual signs of his friendship ... There will be a sincere and lasting friendship and relationship between His Majesty the King of Prussia, his heirs and successors and His Majesty the King of Poland and his successors and the Most Excellent Commonwealth of Poland...
 * * Treaty of the Third Partition of Poland between Russia and Prussia (1795): ...to fix with greater exactness the boundaries which should separate the respective three powers neighboring Poland, after the complete division of the latter...
 * And so on, really countless examples. At least since the end of 17th century "Poland" was the name for the whole country Marcelus (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Countless more examples proves that Lithuania never was Poland, so do not twist historical facts. For example, Polish legal acts were worthless in the territory of Lithuania without confirmation with the Lithuanian seal. -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Republika Srpska has a similar status within Bosnia and Herzegovina. That does not preclude us from having an article on the war between the ethnic-Serbian entity and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with title of Bosnian war. The reason for the title is not because of the desire of Wikipedia to erase Serbs, but because that's what the vast majority of English-language sources refer to it as. Likewise, I don't think that anybody here is denying that Lithuania existed. Rather, the argument is that while Lithuania was a constituent part of the Commonwealth, the multiple wars that together partitioned the Commonwealth are most often referred to as the "Partitions of Poland". — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka,Hedviberit,Merangs,Eccekevin,Mhawk10 Are you folks interested in stating your opinion here please? --> - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per voluminous documentation in other opposes - in short, "Partition(s) of Poland" is how academic sources refer to this in English, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. SnowFire (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per COMONNAME. We don't need to be super precise in such cases. For example, we list Poland as WWII participant, not the Second Polish Republic. Etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unfortunately, though it is more accurate, it does appear that a preponderance of even the most modern scholarly sources are still using the name "Partitions of Poland", and WP:NPOV maintains that Wikipedia reflects what the preponderance of reliable, mainstream scholarship does. The more accurate name is just not used commonly. -- Jayron 32 13:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Partitions of Poland


text:
Understory

In forestry and ecology, understory (American English), or understorey (Commonwealth English), also known as underbrush or undergrowth, includes plant life growing beneath the forest canopy without penetrating it to any great extent, but above the forest floor. Only a small percentage of light penetrates the canopy so understory vegetation is generally shade-tolerant. The understory typically consists of trees stunted through lack of light, other small trees with low light requirements, saplings, shrubs, vines and undergrowth. Small trees such as holly and dogwood are understory specialists.

In temperate deciduous forests, many understory plants start into growth earlier in the year than the canopy trees, to make use of the greater availability of light at that particular time of year. A gap in the canopy caused by the death of a tree stimulates the potential emergent trees into competitive growth as they grow upwards to fill the gap. These trees tend to have straight trunks and few lower branches. At the same time, the bushes, undergrowth, and plant life on the forest floor become denser. The understory experiences greater humidity than the canopy, and the shaded ground does not vary in temperature as much as open ground. This causes a proliferation of ferns, mosses, and fungi and encourages nutrient recycling, which provides favorable habitats for many animals and plants.

Understory structure
The understory is the underlying layer of vegetation in a forest or wooded area, especially the trees and shrubs growing between the forest canopy and the forest floor. Plants in the understory comprise an assortment of seedlings and saplings of canopy trees together with specialist understory shrubs and herbs. Young canopy trees often persist in the understory for decades as suppressed juveniles until an opening in the forest overstory permits their growth into the canopy. In contrast understory shrubs complete their life cycles in the shade of the forest canopy. Some smaller tree species, such as dogwood and holly, rarely grow tall and generally are understory trees.

The canopy of a tropical forest is typically about 10m thick, and intercepts around 95% of the sunlight. The understory therefore receives less intense light than plants in the canopy and such light as does penetrate is impoverished in wavelengths of light that are most effective for photosynthesis. Understory plants therefore must be shade tolerant—they must be able to photosynthesize adequately using such light as does reach their leaves. They often are able to use wavelengths that canopy plants cannot. In temperate deciduous forests towards the end of the leafless season, understory plants take advantage of the shelter of the still leafless canopy plants to "leaf out" before the canopy trees do. This is important because it provides the understory plants with a window in which to photosynthesize without the canopy shading them. This brief period (usually 1–2 weeks) is often a crucial period in which the plant can maintain a net positive carbon balance over the course of the year.

As a rule forest understories also experience higher humidity than exposed areas. The forest canopy reduces solar radiation, so the ground does not heat up or cool down as rapidly as open ground. Consequently, the understory dries out more slowly than more exposed areas do. The greater humidity encourages epiphytes such as ferns and mosses, and allows fungi and other decomposers to flourish. This drives nutrient cycling, and provides favorable microclimates for many animals and plants, such as the pygmy marmoset.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Understory


text:
Catgirl

A catgirl (猫娘) is a young female kemonomimi character with feline traits, such as cat ears (猫耳), a cat tail, or other feline characteristics on an otherwise human body. They are not individuals who are literal cats but individuals who only look superficially feline. Catgirls are found in various fiction genres, particularly in Japanese anime and manga. Catboy is a term for the male equivalent of said character type.

History
The oldest mention of the term nekomusume comes from an 18th-century misemono (見世物) in which a cat/woman hybrid was displayed. Stories of shape-shifting bakeneko prostitutes were popular during the Edo period. The popularity of the nekomusume continued throughout the Edo and Shōwa periods, with many tales of cat/woman hybrids appearing in works such as the Ehon Sayoshigure (絵本小夜時雨) and Ansei zakki (安政雑記).

In Kenji Miyazawa's 1924 work, Suisenzuki no Yokka (水仙月の四日) is the first modern day example of a beautiful, cat-eared woman. In 1936, the nekomusume experienced a revival in kamishibai. The first anime involving catgirls, titled The King’s Tail (Ousama no Shippo), was made in 1949 by Mitsuyo Seo. In America, the DC Comics character Catwoman first appeared in 1940, and Cheetah first appeared in 1943.

Catgirls were further made popular in 1978 manga series The Star of Cottonland, by Yumiko Ōshima. By the 1990s, catgirls were common in Japanese anime and manga. Catgirls have since been featured in various media worldwide. Enough of a subculture has developed for various themed conventions and events to be held around the world, such as Nekocon.

Reception
Japanese philosopher Hiroki Azuma has stated that catgirl characteristics such as cat ears and feline speech patterns are examples of moe-elements. Azuma argued that although some otaku sexual expression involves catgirl imagery, few otaku have the sexual awareness to understand how such imagery can be perceived as perverted. In a 2010 critique of the manga series Loveless, the feminist writer T. A. Noonan argued that, in Japanese culture, catgirl characteristics have a similar role to that of the Playboy Bunny in western culture, serving as a fetishization of youthful innocence.

title: Catgirl


text:
List of programs broadcast by CBS

This is a list of programs currently or formerly broadcast by CBS.

Current programming
Note: Titles are listed according to their year of debut on the network in parentheses.

Drama

 * NCIS (2003)
 * Blue Bloods (2010)
 * S.W.A.T. (2017)
 * FBI (2018)
 * FBI: Most Wanted (2020)
 * The Equalizer (2021)
 * FBI: International (2021)
 * Fire Country (2022)
 * NCIS: Sydney (2023)
 * Tracker (2024)
 * Elsbeth (2024)

Comedy

 * The Neighborhood (2018)
 * Ghosts (2021)

Docuseries

 * FBI True (2023; moved from Paramount+)
 * The Real CSI: Miami (2024)

Reality/unscripted

 * Survivor (2000)
 * Big Brother (2000)
 * The Amazing Race (2001)
 * Tough as Nails (2020)
 * The Greatest @AtHome Videos (2020)
 * Secret Celebrity Renovation (2021)
 * The Challenge: USA (2022)
 * Buddy Games (2023)
 * Big Brother Reindeer Games (2023)

Awards shows

 * Grammy Awards (1973)
 * Tony Awards (1978)
 * Kennedy Center Honors (1978)
 * CMT Music Awards (2022)
 * Golden Globe Awards (1981−82; 2024)
 * American Music Awards (2024)

Game shows

 * The Price Is Right (1972)
 * Let's Make a Deal (2009)
 * Lingo (2023)
 * Superfan (2023)
 * Lotería Loca (2023)
 * Raid the Cage (2023)

Talk shows

 * The Talk (2010)

Late night shows

 * The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (2015)
 * After Midnight (2024)

Specials

 * Frosty the Snowman (1969)
 * Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1972)
 * Frosty Returns (1992)
 * The Story of Santa Claus (1996)
 * Robbie the Reindeer in Hooves of Fire (2002)

News

 * CBS Evening News (1941)
 * Face the Nation (1954)
 * 60 Minutes (1968)
 * CBS News Sunday Morning (1979)
 * CBS Morning News (1982)
 * 48 Hours (1988)
 * CBS News Roundup (2024)
 * CBS Reports (2017)
 * CBS Mornings (2021)
 * CBS Saturday Morning (1997)

Film presentations

 * CBS Sunday Movie (1989–2007; 2015; 2020)

Saturday morning

 * Lucky Dog (2013)
 * Recipe Rehab (2013–15; 2023)
 * The Henry Ford Innovation Nation (2014)
 * Hope In the Wild (2018)
 * Mission Unstoppable (2019)
 * Tails of Valor (2019; 2023)

Soap operas

 * The Young and the Restless (1973)
 * The Bold and the Beautiful (1987)

Sports

 * NFL on CBS (1956)
 * AFC games (and inter-conference games when the AFC team is the road team)
 * The AFC Championship Game
 * The Super Bowl (every four years)
 * The NFL Today (1961)
 * PGA Tour on CBS (1970)
 * Masters Tournament (shared with ESPN)
 * PGA Championship (shared with ESPN)
 * PGA Tour (shared with NBC Sports)
 * College Basketball on CBS (1981)
 * Select weekend regular season games
 * CBS Sports Classic
 * Missouri Valley Conference men's basketball tournament championship
 * Mountain West Conference men's basketball tournament championship
 * Atlantic 10 men's basketball tournament championship
 * Big Ten Conference men's basketball tournament semifinals and Championship
 * Big Ten Conference women's basketball tournament Championship
 * College Football (1996)
 * Southeastern Conference and Big Ten Conference Football, including:
 * Saturday Game of the Week
 * The SEC Championship Game (until 2023)
 * The Big Ten Championship Game (in 2024 and 2028)
 * The Sun Bowl
 * The Army-Navy Game
 * NCAA March Madness (2011)
 * Selection Sunday
 * NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament (shared with TNT Sports)
 * Final Four and National Championship Game (in odd-numbered years)
 * Big3 (2019)
 * Formula E (2021–present)
 * New York City ePrix, as well as 1 additional race
 * UEFA Champions League (2021)

Drama

 * Matlock (September 22, 2024)
 * NCIS: Origins (October 14, 2024)
 * Watson (2024–25 season)
 * Sheriff Country (2025–26 season)

Comedy

 * Georgie & Mandy's First Marriage (October 17, 2024)
 * Poppa's House (October 21, 2024)

Reality/unscripted

 * The Summit (September 29, 2024)

Soap operas

 * The Gates (2024–25 season)

Game shows

 * Hollywood Squares (2024–25 season)

Drama

 * Cambridge
 * Carver Law
 * Citizen Jane
 * Eagle Eye
 * East/West
 * Einstein
 * For Justice
 * Grace
 * The Great Game
 * Guard
 * Harbor Blue
 * HSI: Puerto Rico
 * Manner of Death
 * Mastermind
 * The Mysterious Mortons
 * The Pact
 * Peculiar
 * Samaritan
 * St. Marks
 * Untitled Cold Case reboot
 * Van Helsing

Comedy

 * A Lot
 * Area 51
 * The Bad News Bears
 * Beantown
 * Book Club
 * Bonnie
 * Brutally Honest
 * The Chonga Girls
 * Family Insurance
 * The Honeymooners
 * The Hilsons
 * Mixed Signals
 * She Gets It From Me
 * Talk Nerdy to Me
 * They're With Me
 * Untitled Earthquake comedy
 * Untitled Guenther Steiner project

Reality/non-scripted

 * Untitled Phil Keoghan unscripted competition series

Film presentations

 * CBS Thursday Night Movie (1965–75)
 * The New CBS Tuesday Night Movies (1971–74)
 * The CBS Late Movie (1972–84)

News programming

 * See It Now (1951–58)
 * Person to Person (1953–61, 2012)
 * The Morning Show (1954–56)
 * Good Morning! with Will Rogers, Jr. (1956)
 * Air Power (1956–57)
 * Eyewitness to History (1960–1963)
 * Calendar (1961–1963)
 * The First Hundred Years (1963–79)
 * CBS Morning News (1963–87)
 * In the News (1971–86)
 * 30 Minutes (1978–82)
 * CBS News Nightwatch (1982–92)
 * West 57th (1985–89)
 * The Morning Program (1987)
 * CBS This Morning (1987–1999; 2012–2021)
 * Saturday Night with Connie Chung (1989–1990)
 * Street Stories (1992–93)
 * Up to the Minute (1992–2015)
 * Eye to Eye with Connie Chung (1993–95)
 * CBS News Saturday Morning (1997–99)
 * Public Eye with Bryant Gumbel (1997–98)
 * The Early Show (1999–2012)
 * The Saturday Early Show (1999–2021)
 * 60 Minutes II (1999–2005)
 * CBS This Morning Saturday (2012–21)
 * Person to Person (2012)
 * CBS Overnight News (2015–24)
 * Pink Collar Crimes (2018)

Sports

 * Major League Baseball on CBS (1947–1950, 1955–1965, 1990–1993)
 * NBA on CBS (1973–1990)
 * Thoroughbred Racing on CBS (1952–1985)
 * SEC on CBS (1996–2023)
 * NHL on CBS (1956–1960, 1966–1972, and 1980)
 * Showtime Championship Boxing (2012–2023) (co-production with Showtime Networks)
 * Olympics on CBS (1960, 1992, 1994, 1998)
 * NASCAR on CBS (1960–2000)
 * Formula One (1960-1961, 1977–1981, 1983–1988, 2005–2006)
 * NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship (1982–1995)
 * College World Series on CBS (1988–2002)
 * Indy Racing League on CBS (1997–1998)
 * SRX on CBS (2021–2022)

Shows

 * Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (September 16, 1995 – September 6, 1997)
 * The Adventures of Hyperman (October 14, 1995 – August 17, 1996)
 * The Adventures of Raggedy Ann and Andy (September 17, 1988 – September 8, 1990)
 * Aladdin (September 17, 1994 – August 24, 1996)
 * All Grown Up! (March 13, 2004 – September 11, 2004)
 * All In with Laila Ali (September 28, 2013 – September 26, 2015; 2020–22)
 * The All-New Dennis the Menace (September 18 – December 11, 1993)
 * The All New Popeye Hour (September 9, 1978 – September 5, 1983)
 * The Alvin Show (1962–65)
 * The Amazing Chan and the Chan Clan (September 9 – December 30, 1972)
 * Anatole (October 3, 1998 – September 9, 2000)
 * The Archie Show (September 14, 1968 – January 4, 1969)
 * Archie's TV Funnies (September 11, 1971 – September 1, 1973)
 * Ark II (September 18, 1976 – August 25, 1979)
 * As Told by Ginger (September 14, 2002 – November 23, 2002)
 * Back to the Future (September 14, 1991 – August 28, 1993)
 * The Backyardigans (September 18, 2004 – September 9, 2006)
 * Bailey's Comets (September 8, 1973 – April 13, 1974)
 * Bailey Kipper's P.O.V. (September 21, 1996 – September 6, 1997)
 * The Batman/Tarzan Adventure Hour (September 10, 1977 – September 2, 1978)
 * The Beagles (September 10, 1966 – September 2, 1967)
 * Beakman's World (September 18, 1993 – January 4, 1998)
 * Beethoven (September 10 – December 3, 1994)
 * Benji, Zax & the Alien Prince (September 17 – December 17, 1983)
 * The Berenstain Bears (September 14, 1985 – March 7, 1987)
 * Best Friends Furever (2019–20)
 * Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (September 15 – December 22, 1990)
 * Birdz (October 3, 1998 – January 2, 1999)
 * The Biskitts (September 17, 1983 – September 8, 1984)
 * Blackstar (September 12 – December 5, 1981)
 * Blaster's Universe (September 11, 1999 – September 9, 2000)
 * Blue's Clues (September 16, 2000 – September 9, 2006)
 * Bob the Builder (September 22, 2001 – September 7, 2002)
 * The Brothers García (March 13, 2004 – September 11, 2004)
 * The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Hour (September 14, 1968 – September 4, 1971; September 6, 1975 – September 7, 1985)
 * Busytown Mysteries (September 19, 2009 – September 21, 2013)
 * Cadillacs and Dinosaurs (September 18, 1993 – January 28, 1994)
 * Cake (September 16, 2006 – September 12, 2009)
 * The California Raisin Show (September 16 – December 9, 1989)
 * Captain Kangaroo (October 3, 1955 – December 8, 1984)
 * Captain Midnight (September 9, 1954 – January 21, 1956)
 * Care Bears: Adventures in Care-a-lot (September 15, 2007 – September 12, 2009)
 * CBS Storybreak (March 30, 1985 – January 28, 1989; 1993–98)
 * ChalkZone (February 1, 2003 – September 11, 2004)
 * The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Show (September 17, 1983 – October 12, 1985)
 * Chicken Soup for the Soul's Hidden Heroes (October 3, 2015 – June 24, 2017)
 * Clue Club (September 4 – December 11, 1976)
 * Conan and the Young Warriors (March 5 – August 27, 1994)
 * CyberCOPS (March 27 – September 4, 1993)
 * Dance Revolution (September 16, 2006 – September 8, 2007)
 * Danger Rangers (September 17, 2011 – September 15, 2012)
 * Dastardly and Muttley in Their Flying Machines (September 13, 1969 – January 3, 1970)
 * Dennis the Menace (January 2 – March 26, 1988; originated in syndication and moved to CBS)
 * Did I Mention Invention? (2022–23)
 * Dink, the Little Dinosaur (September 16, 1989 – November 3, 1990)
 * DinoSquad (November 3, 2007 – September 12, 2009)
 * The Doodlebops (September 17, 2011 – September 21, 2013)
 * The Doodlebops' Rockin Road Show (April 3, 2010 – September 3, 2011)
 * Dora the Explorer (September 16, 2000 – September 9, 2006)
 * Drak Pack (September 6 – December 20, 1980)
 * The Dukes (February 5 – October 29, 1983)
 * Dumb Bunnies (October 3, 1998 – March 27, 1999)
 * Dungeons & Dragons (September 17, 1983 – December 7, 1985)
 * Far Out Space Nuts (September 6, 1975 – September 2, 1976)
 * Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids (September 9, 1972 – November 13, 1982)
 * Fievel's American Tails (September 19, 1992 – September 4, 1993)
 * The Flintstone Comedy Hour (September 9, 1972 – January 26, 1974)
 * Flip! (1988)
 * Flying Rhino Junior High (1998–2000)
 * Frankenstein Jr. and The Impossibles (September 10, 1966 – January 17, 1967)
 * Franklin (October 3, 1998 – January 30, 1999; September 16, 2000 – September 7, 2002)
 * Fudge (September – December 1997)
 * Galaxy High School (September 13 – December 6, 1986)
 * Game Changers with Kevin Frazier (2013–16)
 * Garfield and Friends (September 17, 1988 – October 7, 1995)
 * The Get Along Gang (September 15 – December 8, 1984)
 * The Ghost Busters (September 6 – December 13, 1975)
 * Gilligan's Planet (September 18 – December 11, 1982)
 * Go, Diego, Go! (September 17, 2005 – September 9, 2006)
 * Harlem Globetrotters (September 12, 1970 – May 20, 1973)
 * The Harlem Globetrotters Popcorn Machine (September 7, 1974 – August 30, 1975)
 * The Heckle and Jeckle Cartoon Show (October 14, 1956 – 1966)
 * Hello Kitty's Furry Tale Theater (September 19 – December 12, 1987)
 * Help!... It's the Hair Bear Bunch! (September 11, 1971 – January 8, 1972)
 * The Herculoids (September 9, 1967 – January 6, 1968)
 * Hey Arnold! (September 14, 2002 – September 11, 2004)
 * Hey Vern, It's Ernest! (September 17 – December 24, 1988)
 * Hong Kong Phooey (1975–1980)
 * Horseland (September 16, 2006 – September 12, 2009; February 5, 2011 – September 15, 2012)
 * Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling (September 14, 1985 – June 27, 1987)
 * Inspector Gadget (1991–92)
 * The Inspectors (October 3, 2015 – May 25, 2019)
 * Jamie's 15-Minute Meals (September 28, 2013 – September 20, 2014)
 * Jason of Star Command (September 9, 1978 – December 1, 1979)
 * Jeannie (September 8 – December 22, 1973)
 * The Jetsons (1964–65; 1969–71)
 * Josie and the Pussycats (September 12, 1970 – December 23, 1972)
 * Kipper (September 16, 2000 – September 15, 2001)
 * The Kwicky Koala Show (September 12 – December 26, 1981)
 * LazyTown (September 18, 2004 – September 9, 2006)
 * Liberty's Kids (September 22, 2012 – September 21, 2013)
 * The Lion King's Timon & Pumbaa (September 16, 1995 – November 9, 1996)
 * Little Bear (September 16, 2000 – September 15, 2001)
 * Little Bill (September 16, 2000 – September 7, 2002, August 2, 2003 – March 6, 2004; September 18, 2004 – September 9, 2006)
 * The Little Mermaid (September 19, 1992 – September 9, 1995)
 * Little Muppet Monsters (September 14 – 28, 1985)
 * The Lone Ranger (September 10, 1966 – September 6, 1969)
 * Madeline (September 16, 2006 – September 8, 2007)
 * Marsupilami (September 11, 1993 – September 10, 1994)
 * The Mask: Animated Series (September 16, 1995 – September 6, 1997)
 * Meatballs & Spaghetti (September 18, 1982 – March 5, 1983)
 * Mighty Mouse Playhouse (December 10, 1955 – September 2, 1967)
 * Mighty Mouse: The New Adventures (September 19, 1987 – October 22, 1988)
 * Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends (September 18, 2004 – September 10, 2005)
 * Moby Dick and Mighty Mightor (September 9, 1967 – January 6, 1968)
 * The Monkees ( September 1969 – September 1972)
 * Mother Goose and Grimm (September 14, 1991 – 1992)
 * Muppet Babies (September 15, 1984 – November 2, 1991)
 * Mythic Warriors: Guardians of the Legend (October 3, 1998 – September 9, 2000)
 * The New Adventures of Batman (February 12, 1977 – May 28, 1977)
 * The New Adventures of Mighty Mouse and Heckle & Jeckle (September 8, 1979 – April 8, 1980)
 * The New Adventures of Superman (September 10, 1966 – September 5, 1970)
 * The New Adventures of Zorro (September 12 – December 5, 1981)
 * The New Ghostwriter Mysteries (1997-98)
 * The New Scooby-Doo Movies (September 9, 1972 – October 27, 1973)
 * Noonbory and the Super Seven (August 15, 2009 – September 11, 2010)
 * Oswald (September 22, 2001 – November 23, 2002)
 * Pandamonium (September 18 – December 11, 1982)
 * Partridge Family 2200 A.D. (September 7 – March 8, 1975)
 * The Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm Show (September 11, 1971 – January 1, 1972)
 * Pee-wee's Playhouse (September 13, 1986 – November 17, 1990)
 * Pelswick (September 14, 2002 – November 23, 2002)
 * The Perils of Penelope Pitstop (September 13, 1969 – January 17, 1970)
 * Pole Position (September 15 – December 8, 1984)
 * Popeye and Son (September 19 – December 12, 1987)
 * Project G.e.e.K.e.R. (September 14 – December 7, 1996)
 * Pryor's Place (September 15 – December 8, 1984)
 * Raw Toonage (September 19 – December 5, 1992)
 * Really Wild Animals (September 16, 1995 –August 10, 1996)
 * Rescue Heroes (September 11, 1999 – September 9, 2000)
 * Richie Rich (January 11 – August 30, 1986)
 * Riders in the Sky (September 14 – December 7, 1991)
 * Rude Dog and the Dweebs (September 16 – December 16, 1989)
 * Rugrats (February 1, 2003 – August 2, 2003)
 * Rupert (1999)
 * Sabrina: The Animated Series (September 15, 2006 – October 27, 2007; September 19, 2009 – January 29, 2011)
 * Sabrina the Teenage Witch (September 12, 1970 – August 31, 1974)
 * Sabrina's Secret Life (September 18, 2010 – January 29, 2011)
 * Santo Bugito (September 16, 1995 – August 17, 1996)
 * Saturday Supercade (September 17, 1983 – December 1, 1984)
 * Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! (September 13, 1969 – October 31, 1970; 1974–76)
 * The Secrets of Isis (September 6, 1975 – October 23, 1976)
 * Secrets of the Cryptkeeper's Haunted House (September 14, 1996 – August 23, 1997)
 * Shazam! (September 7, 1974 – October 16, 1976)
 * The Shazam!/Isis Hour (September 6, 1975 – October 23, 1976)
 * Shazzan (September 9, 1967 – January 20, 1968)
 * Shirt Tales (1984–85)
 * The Skatebirds (September 10, 1977 – January 21, 1978)
 * Space Academy (September 10, 1977 – September 1, 1979)
 * Space Ghost (September 10, 1966 – September 16, 1967)
 * Speed Buggy (September 8, 1973 – January 29, 1983)
 * The Sports Illustrated for Kids Show (1997-98)
 * Strawberry Shortcake (September 15, 2007 – September 12, 2009; April 3 – September 11, 2010)
 * Superman (September 17 – December 10, 1988)
 * Sushi Pack (November 3, 2007 – September 12, 2009)
 * Sylvester & Tweety (1976–77)
 * Sylvester & Tweety, Daffy & Speedy (1981–82)
 * Tales from the Cryptkeeper (October 3–31, 1998; September 11, 1999 – September 9, 2000)
 * The Tarzan/Lone Ranger Adventure Hour (September 12, 1981 – September 11, 1982)
 * Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle (September 11, 1976 – November 3, 1979)
 * Tarzan and the Super 7 (September 9, 1978 – September 6, 1980)
 * Teen Wolf (September 13, 1986 – November 7, 1987)
 * Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (September 8, 1990 – August 30, 1997; originated in syndication in 1987, moved to CBS in 1990 during its fourth season)
 * Tennessee Tuxedo and His Tales (September 28, 1963 – January 29, 1966)
 * Tom and Jerry (September 25, 1965 – September 17, 1972)
 * The Tom and Jerry Comedy Show (September 6 – December 13, 1980)
 * Trollkins (September 12 – December 5, 1981)
 * Trollz (September 16, 2006 – October 27, 2007; February 5 – September 15, 2011)
 * The Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat (September 16, 1995 – September 6, 1997)
 * Underdog (1966–67)
 * The U.S. of Archie (September 7 – December 21, 1974)
 * Valley of the Dinosaurs (September 7 – December 21, 1974)
 * Wacky Races (September 14, 1968 – January 4, 1969)
 * The Weird Al Show (September 13 – December 6, 1997)
 * Wheel 2000 (September 13, 1997 – September 26, 1998)
 * Where's Wally? (September 14 – December 14, 1991)
 * What's New, Mr. Magoo? (September 10 – December 24, 1977)
 * The Wild Thornberrys (September 14, 2002 – March 6, 2004)
 * Wildfire (September 13 – December 13, 1986)
 * The Wuzzles (September 14 – December 7, 1985)

Interstitials

 * Amby & Dexter
 * I Can Do It!
 * In the Know (1970–71)
 * In the News (1971–86)
 * Just Ask!
 * Just for Me Stories
 * LazyTown Shorts
 * Maggie and the Ferocious Beast
 * Mighty Bug 5
 * Miss Spider's Bug Facts
 * Nick Jr. Playful Parent
 * Nick Jr. Presents
 * Nick Jr. Show and Tell
 * Nick Jr. Sings
 * Nickelodeon Election Connection
 * Stickin' Around (1994–95)
 * Tinpo (2007–09)
 * What's on Your Plate?
 * What's the Buzz with Philomena Fly

Other

 * Lamp Unto My Feet (1948–79) – religious program
 * You Are There (1953–57; 1971–72) – historical educational docu-drama
 * Captain Kangaroo (October 3, 1955 – December 8, 1984) – weekday morning children's program
 * The Wizard of Oz (1956, 1959–67; 1976–98) – annual TV event
 * 'Way Out (1961)
 * Walt Disney (1981–1983)
 * The Country Music Association Awards (1972–2005)
 * Circus of the Stars (1977–94)
 * The Magic of David Copperfield (1978–2001)
 * Miss USA/Miss Universe (1960–2002); Miss Teen-USA (1983–2002)
 * World of Discovery (1985–97) – documentary series
 * Special Report: Journey To Mars (1996) – documentary film
 * Academy of Country Music Awards (1998–2021)
 * Victoria's Secret Fashion Show (2002–03; 2005–17)
 * Harper's Globe (2009)

title: List of programs broadcast by CBS


text:
Talk:Smegma

There is a real picture of a private part. This can be innocently seen by children. This should be replaced by a drawing or a written description.

Photo
Why does this article have to have the worst possible and certainly not at all realistic case of neglected hygiene? Wikipedia Commons holds several quite normal cases of smegma secretions as usable photos and for some reason most non-English versions of this page manage to use one of these instead. Without problems or discussions and particularly also without leading viewers on. Is there such a horror of a normal physical excretion among US-editors here that you need to post the most exaggerated picture available? Why not take this for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASmegma_Penis02.mirrored.jpg
 * I just reverted the image that was in use as excessive. The image presently there is a cropped version of the image you just linked. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Contentious material on cancer
The material on penile cancer that was reintroduced last year is highly contentious and not reliable seeing as it came from doctors in the forties who were seeking to promote the practice of circumcision. I feel it constitutes propaganda for the pro-circumcision cause so I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scowie (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The study you removed, published in Science, is well sourced and immediately countered by other reliable sources (ACS, NIH) which you also removed. Based on your belief that doctors in the 1940s were biased and the source is "propaganda", you have removed both sides of the issue. I tend to believe that balanced discussion of earlier beliefs and the current consensus makes more sense than bowdlerizing the article.
 * If you have WP:MEDRS sources discussing it as "propaganda", discussion of that point would probably be an appropriate addition to the article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I consider it WP:Undue_Weight to have these arguments in the article.Scowie (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The propaganda undue weight issue doesn't seem to measure up against the brevity of the section with three WP:MEDRS sources discussing it. Additionally, without the section we are citing a source 4 times with the title "The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth" while not so much as mentioning the topic of that article. Heck, the American Cancer Society in 2015 is still giving a fair amount of space to the belief from this 1940s study. We also, of course, have the 2006 journal article solely dedicated to the belief and numerous other peer reviewed journal articles discussing the question. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smegma. 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/20050914114048/http://www.horsecity.com/stories/090101/hea_beans_ML.shtml to http://www.horsecity.com/stories/090101/hea_beans_ML.shtml

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) 04:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs spoiler'd images
This and basically every article involving genitals should only have images that are viewed on an "opt in" basis by covering the image and only showing it when clicked on. Articles like this are extremely difficult to read due to the repulsive imagery. Now I know some people might disagree but I think most people would agree with me. 2601:646:8600:2C60:C1BC:7D7F:343B:EDD3 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See Help:Hiding images for how you can do that on your end. The community has repeatedly and soundly rejected any and all forms of censoring images directly, including show/hide boxen. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Male smegma - update and more info needed -
Most of the references for this section are half a century old. Surely urologists have a better understanding of the sources and functions of this substance by now?

Also, I still don't KNOW, after reading the article, whether circumcised males produce smegma at all!

Finally, is it not possible to add a clear picture, similar to that for females, of a normal amount of smegma on a natural (uncircumcised) penis? Yes, I'm aware of the edit warring and shock! horror! responses of prudes on this talk page over a decade ago. But there's now no such photo. Surely an Encyclopedia doesn't let the small minds win?! yoyo (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Picture of private part
There is a real picture of a private part. This can be innocently seen by children. This should be replaced by a drawing or a written description. 24.92.143.187 (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Smegma


text:
Betulaceae

Betulaceae, the birch family, includes six genera of deciduous nut-bearing trees and shrubs, including the birches, alders, hazels, hornbeams, hazel-hornbeam, and hop-hornbeams numbering a total of 167 species. They are mostly natives of the temperate Northern Hemisphere, with a few species reaching the Southern Hemisphere in the Andes in South America. Their typical flowers are catkins and often appear before leaves.

In the past, the family was often divided into two families, Betulaceae (Alnus, Betula) and Corylaceae (the rest). Recent treatments, including the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, have described these two groups as subfamilies within an expanded Betulaceae: Betuloideae and Coryloideae.

Betulaceae flowers are monoecious, meaning that they have both male and female flowers on the same tree. Their flowers present as catkins and are small and inconspicuous, often with reduced perianth parts. These flowers have large feathery stamen and produce a high volume of pollen, as they rely on wind pollination. Their leaves are simple, with alternate arrangement and doubly serrate margins.

Evolutionary history
The Betulaceae are believed to have originated at the end of the Cretaceous period (about 70 million years ago) in central China. This region at the time would have had a Mediterranean climate due to the proximity of the Tethys Sea, which covered parts of present-day Tibet and Xinjiang into the early Tertiary period. This point of origin is supported by the fact that all six genera and 52 species are native to this region, many of those being endemic. All six modern genera are believed to have diverged fully by the Oligocene, with all genera in the family (with the exception of Ostryopsis) having a fossil record stretching back at least 20 million years from the present.

According to molecular phylogeny, the closest relatives of the Betulaceae are the Casuarinaceae, or the she-oaks.

Uses
The common hazel (Corylus avellana) and the filbert (Corylus maxima) are important orchard plants, grown for their edible nuts.

The other genera include a number of popular ornamental trees, widely planted in parks and large gardens; several of the birches are particularly valued for their smooth, brightly coloured bark.

The wood is generally hard, tough and heavy, hornbeams particularly so; several species were of significant importance in the past where very hard wood capable of withstanding heavy wear was required, such as for cartwheels, water wheels, cog wheels, tool handles, chopping boards, and wooden pegs. In most of these uses, wood has now been replaced by metal or other man-made materials.

Extant genera

 * Betuloideae
 * Alnus Mill. 1754 – alder
 * Betula L. 1753 – birch
 * Coryloideae
 * Carpinus L. 1753 – hornbeam
 * Corylus L. 1753 – hazel
 * Ostrya Scop. 1760 – hop-hornbeam
 * Ostryopsis Decne. 1873 – hazel-hornbeam

Fossil genera

 * Betuloidea
 * Alnipollenites R. Potonié, 1931 (pollen)
 * †Alnoxylon Felix, 1884 (wood)
 * †Alnuspollenites Raatz, 1938 (pollen)
 * †Betulapollenites R. Potonié, 1937 (pollen)
 * †Betulaepollenites R. Potonié, 1934 (pollen)
 * †Paralnoxylon Doweld, 2021 (wood)

 * Coryloidea
 * †Asterocarpinus Manchester & Crane, 1987 (fruits)
 * †Coryloides Manchester, 1994 (fruits)
 * †Cranea Manchester & Chen, 1998 (fruits, flowers, pollen & Leaves)
 * †Corylocarpinus Straus, 1969 (fruits)
 * †Craspedodromophyllum P.R. Crane, 1981 (leaves)
 * †Kardiasperma Manchester, 1994 (fruits)
 * †Palaeocarpinus P.R. Crane, 1981 (fruits)
 * †Paracarpinus Manchester & P.R. Crane, 1987 (leaves)

 * Incertae sedis

 * †Alniphyllum Nathorst, 1886 (leaves)
 * †Alnites Göppert, 1837 (leaves, flowers, fruits)
 * †Alnophyllum Staub, 1884 (leaves)
 * †Betulites Göppert, 1837 (flowers)
 * †Betulacites Agranovskaja, Botscharnikova, & Martynova, 1960 (pollen)
 * †Betulinium Unger, 1842 (wood)
 * †Trivestibulopollenites Pflug & P.W. Thomson, 1953 (pollen)
 * †Betuliphyllum Dusén in Nordenskjöld, 1899 (leaves)
 * †Betuloidites R. Potonié, Thomson, & Thiergart, 1950 (pollen)
 * †Betuloxylon Kaiser, 1880 (wood)
 * †Carpinicarpus Nikitin, 1966 (fruits)
 * †Carpiniphyllum Nathorst ex Krassilov, 1979 (leaves)
 * †Carpinites Göppert & Berendt, 1845 (flowers)
 * †Carpinoxylon Vater, 1884 (wood)
 * †Carpinuspollenites R. Potonié, Thomson, & Thiergart, 1949 (pollen)
 * †Castanopsispollenites Thiergart, 1937 (pollen)
 * †Clethrites Beuth, 1776 (wood)
 * †Corylipollenites R. Potonié, 1934 (pollen)
 * †Corylites Gardner, 1887 (leaves)
 * †Coryloidites R. Potonié, Thomson, & Thiergart, 1949 (pollen)
 * †Corylophyllum J. Dawson, 1888 (leaves)
 * †Coryloxylon U. Prakash, Březinová, & Bůžek, 1971 (wood)
 * †Coryluspollenites Raatz, 1938 (pollen)
 * †Eucarpinoxylon MuellerStoll & Maedel, 1959 (wood)
 * †Ostryoipollenites R. Potonié, 1960 (pollen)
 * †Phegites C.N. Lange ex J.F. Krüger, 1825 (wood)
 * †Rhizoalnoxylon Conwentz, 1880 (root)
 * †Triporopollenites Pflug & P.W. Thomson, 1953 (pollen)

Phylogenetic systematics
Modern molecular phylogenetics suggest the following relationships:

title: Betulaceae


text:
Talk:Petting

isn't this also a term in human relations?

 * Janet: I thought there's no use getting / into heavy petting / it only leads to trouble / and seat-wetting -- the Rocky Horror Show

-- ;-) -- Tarquin 20:14 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

...I think its just a joke. --Katt

 * It's a joke, but a joke that confirms its use as a term in "human relations". --Daniel C. Boyer 13:37, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's a dictionary entry. the librarian

From VfD

 * Petting a dictionary definition WP:WINAD. Maximus Rex 05:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete as dictionary definition. I will caution that according to Wikipedia precedent, any sexual slang term can be turned into a full-featured article about a small, but somehow significant, community of people who write, discuss, and engage in said behavior as a major part of their lives.  It's only a matter of time before this article is linked to furry.  Daniel Quinlan 07:44, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * Come on, Daniel Quinlan! This is an extremely common, if not pervasive, term and practice, clearly of enough significance (if expanded), to keep.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've added it to Sexual slang Andy Mabbett 09:49, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Give it some time at Cleanup. Andre Engels 11:57, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. slang is 2nd meaning (but valid; needs expansion). Animal-human relationship primary (but needs expansion). reddi
 * Maybe move sexual term to an article like sexology or sexual behavior or even foreplay? -- Pakaran 21:19, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, though I won't be expanding this rather stubby article. JamesDay 21:31, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, as disamb for Petting (animal) & Petting (sexuality). The animal part was recently moved, inappropriately, to become a dict def in Domestication where (as with, e.g., Dog) there should be instead a link to Petting (animal) that can e.g. discuss developmental effects of petting on animals normally and prematurely separated from mother, destructiveness of petting wild ungulates, and danger of petting wild carnivores. The sexuality part is valuable, and not properly redirected to Foreplay, which has, excuse me, a whole different thrust; it can e.g. link to Blue balls (and, IIRC, Testicular congestion; we can argue abt which is the redirect to the other) and Slippery slope and maybe Saving oneself. --Jerzy 18:58, 2003 Nov 14 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's great. Mommy, I found a page for the petting zoo...  Daniel Quinlan 08:19, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Other languages
The sexual usage seems to be the most used internationally. Many languages seem to have borrowed the english term with the sexual definition, using native words for "petting animals". For instance, the other Wikipedia pages linked here are referring to the sexual sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.113.112 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 February 2005
 * So, english-speaking people, is it relevant to have interwikis in THIS artice to word "petting" in other languages if all of them refers to outercourse? Infovarius 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shall I delete them? Infovarius (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Humans are Animals
"refers to a human petting an animal—or another human." Shouldn't this be "refers to a human petting an animal, including another human." ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.164.84 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Animal petting
There's no page on petting as in stroking non-sexually; it's not "Social grooming is a behaviour in which social animals, including humans, clean or maintain one another's body or appearance." ( Social grooming ). It should probably be here, given it is an actual discernible thing. AllenY99 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Petting