text:
Talk:Meat

Merge meat industry
Meat industry is a poor article that should be merged to this article as it contains little information that isn't already found on this one. There is currently a discussion about this on the talk-page of meat industry. I am suggesting that we merge that article into this one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 * On the whole I'd probably oppose this, an immediate reason being that Meat is currently nominated for GAN and is just awaiting a reviewer; the last thing I want to do in the middle of that is to carry out a merge.

 * Aside from that, Meat industry is certainly a notable topic in its own right: indeed, a sensitive and controversial one, with strongly held opinions on both sides. There is obviously scope for improvement in the text, but there is no shortage of sources or of significant things to say. Its 'History' chapter should describe how the industry transitioned from the village butcher to a factory-style mechanised process. Its 'Industry' chapter should describe the size of the business around the world, trade (imports and exports), and destinations (supermarkets, butchers, catering, industrial processing, petfood). Its 'Ethics' chapter should describe the arguments for (tradition, nutrition) and against (cruelty, environmental impact) its existence. These aren't necessarily the same as the arguments for meat as such; a case can be made that small-scale production, slaughter, and consumption do not have the same cruelty and environmental impacts, for example. We should be in no hurry to merge, as this is a substantial topic that editors might well enjoy writing, and indeed given the amount of attention to the whole area (cattle, meat, veganism, etc) it is somewhat surprising that it has been so neglected. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Closing with no merge; uncontested objection, no support and stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Protection for Article
This article does not need protection, as defined by the Wikipedia Semi-Protection Standards. Pierre151 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree. The small amount of protection prevents continual large WP:COATRACK and POV edits and reversions on human health and animal cruelty, both topics that are extensively covered on Wikipedia already, and which are briefly and suitably mentioned here. The article consumed substantial admin effort before it was protected. It should stay as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with Chiswick Chap. The article has been the target of people with a non-encyclopaedic agenda and needs protection.  Tim riley  talk   12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Health effects
An editor has attempted to add a large body of material on the Health effects of red meat, but has already been reverted by another editor. I concur with the reversion, for the following reasons.

1) This article is about meat in general, not just about red meat, so the above is an aspect of a detail, in other words a bit of a WP:COATRACK, not suitable for this article.

2) This article already has an extensive chapter on "Health Effects", covering many aspects of the question.

3) There is much more detail at Red meat, which article is already linked at the top of the "Health effects" chapter here.

It is therefore quite inappropriate to add a large, unbalanced amount of material to this article on such a sub-sub-topic, which is well and correctly handled elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 * 1) This article is highly misleading as it implies that unprocessed meat increases mortality rates and causes negative health effects. However, cohort studies that account for multiple confounding factors have proven otherwise. Therefore, it is not an example of WP:COATRACK.
 * 2) The "Health Effects" section of this article currently cites weak, unscientific evidence and overlooks robust cohort studies that consider multiple confounding factors.
 * 3) The existing details are inadequate, relying on studies that fall into the correlation-causation fallacy. There is a lack of rigorous, evidence-based research in the current content. Itisme3248 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article is citing very weak evidence and largely ignoring cohort studies that take into account confounding factors such as smoking, BMI, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle factors. These cohort studies provide a more accurate assessment of the health risks associated with unprocessed red meat, showing no evidence of a significant increase in overall bad health effects, mortality rate etc

 * How did this page pass the Good Article review? Many of the so-called "studies" cited here are unscientific, as they fail to account for confounding factors and rely on correlation-causation fallacies.
 * Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282
 * Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
 * https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471
 * Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/
 * Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/
 * Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z
 *  Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282
 * "Results: In the PURE study, during 9.5 y of follow-up, we recorded 7789 deaths and 6976 CVD events. Higher unprocessed red meat intake (≥250 g/wk vs. <50 g/wk) was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14) or major CVD (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.11; P-trend = 0.72). Similarly, no association was observed between poultry intake and health outcomes. Higher intake of processed meat (≥150 g/wk vs. 0 g/wk) was associated with higher risk of total mortality (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.10; P-trend = 0.009) and major CVD (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.98; P-trend = 0.004).
 * Conclusions: In a large multinational prospective study, we did not find significant associations between unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and mortality or major CVD. Conversely, a higher intake of processed meat was associated with a higher risk of mortality and major CVD."
 * The risk associated with different types of meat consumption in this study was as follows:
 * Unprocessed red meat: Consuming 250 grams or more per week compared to less than 50 grams per week was not significantly associated with total mortality or major cardiovascular disease (CVD). The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 1.02), indicating a non-significant 7% reduction in risk, which statistically isn’t different from no effect. The HR for major CVD was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.11), showing virtually no association.
 * Processed meat: Consuming 150 grams or more per week compared to none at all was associated with a significantly higher risk of both total mortality and major CVD. The HR for mortality was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.08, 2.10), suggesting a 51% increased risk of death. The HR for major CVD was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.98), indicating a 46% increased risk of major cardiovascular events.
 *  Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
 * Study: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471
 * "For total red meat consumption, the corresponding relative risk for 120 g/day (∼1.5 servings/day) versus 20 g/day (∼1.5–2 servings/week) was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.20, 1.38). Unprocessed red meat consumption (5 studies) showed a statistically nonsignificant linear association with all-cause mortality (for a 100-g/day increase in consumption, RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.997, 1.20)."
 *  Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
 * Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/
 * "Nine articles with seventeen prospective cohorts were eligible in this meta-analysis, including a total of 150 328 deaths. There was evidence of a non-linear association between processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but not for cancer mortality. For processed meat, the pooled relative risk with an increase of one serving per day was 1·15 (95 % CI 1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality (five studies; P<0·001 for linear trend), 1·15 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·24) for cardiovascular mortality (six studies; P<0·001) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·06, 1·11) for cancer mortality (five studies; P<0·001). Similar associations were found with total meat intake. The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations."
 * In the US, eating unprocessed red meat is linked to mortality risk, but this connection isn't seen in European or Asian populations.
 * The regional differences in the association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk could be influenced by variations in meat quality. Factors such as production practices, processing standards, and environmental factors may lead to differences in the nutritional composition and safety of meat products across regions. For example, variations in the use of hormones, antibiotics, and feed additives, as well as differences in livestock-raising practices (such as grass-fed vs. grain-fed), could contribute to differing health effects of red meat consumption between populations.
 * Additionally, it is likely that compared with European habits, red meat in the USA may be often barbecued or grilled, thus contributing to higher contents of polycyclic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines.
 *  Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time
 * Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/
 * According to the analysis from two large cohort studies, there is a modest increase in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk associated with the consumption of processed red meat, particularly affecting the distal colon. Processed red meat consumption was linked to a higher CRC risk with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.15 for a 1 serving/day increase, and even more so for distal colon cancer (HR = 1.36). In contrast, the consumption of unprocessed red meat did not significantly increase the overall risk of CRC and was actually inversely associated with distal colon cancer risk (HR = 0.75 for a 1 serving/day increase).
 * These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between processed and unprocessed meats when considering dietary recommendations for CRC prevention. The studies underline the need for further investigation into how meat processing and the timing of consumption influence CRC risk across different parts of the colon and rectum.
 *  Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study
 * Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer
 * "We found weak evidence of harmful associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer; the mean RR at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake was 1.30 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 1.01–1.64), while the mean RR at 100 g d−1 was 1.37 (1.01–1.78) (Table 2 and Fig. 1), where the UIs account for between-study heterogeneity and other forms of uncertainty. We estimated the exposure-averaged burden of proof RR to be 1.06, indicating that consuming unprocessed red meat in the range of 15th to 85th percentiles of exposure (0 g d−1 to 98 g d−1) was associated with at least a 6% higher risk of colorectal cancer. This corresponds to an ROS of 0.06 and a two-star rating, consistent with weak evidence."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease
 * "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and breast cancer
 * "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of breast cancer. The BPRF value (averaged across the 15th to 85th percentiles of red meat consumption, 0–69 g d−1) was 1.03, which was substantially lower than the mean RR of 1.26 (0.98–1.56) and 1.26 (0.98–1.56) at 50 g d−1 and 100 g d−1, respectively. The corresponding ROS is 0.03 (Table 2 and Fig. 2), which translates to a two-star risk and means that unprocessed red meat intake is associated with at least a 3% higher risk of colorectal cancer. When accounting for between-study heterogeneity, the mean RR UI at different exposure levels spanned 1 (Table 2)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease
 * "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and type 2 diabetes
 * "We found evidence of weak harmful effects between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes, with a mean RR of 1.14 (0.97–1.32) at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake and a mean RR of 1.23 (0.96–1.52) at 100 g d−1 relative to no intake (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 2). The BPRF value was 1.01 and the corresponding ROS was 0.01, equating to a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of type 2 diabetes)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic stroke "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for ischemic stroke (averaged between 15th and 85th percentiles of red meat exposure) was 0.98 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3), which put it opposite null from the mean RR of 1.15 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 0.93–1.40) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of –0.02 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of ischemic stroke."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and hemorrhagic stroke
 * "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for hemorrhagic stroke was 1.14 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 4), which was opposite null from the mean RR of 0.87 (0.56–1.35) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of −0.13 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke."
 *  The Importance of Accounting for Confounding Factors
 * When assessing the link between unprocessed meat consumption and colorectal cancer, it's essential to consider how earlier studies might have arrived at different conclusions due to not fully accounting for confounding factors. Confounding factors are variables that can influence both the exposure (in this case, unprocessed meat consumption) and the outcome (colorectal cancer), potentially skewing the results if not properly adjusted for in the analysis.
 * For instance, some studies suggesting an association between unprocessed meat and colon cancer may not have adequately adjusted for a range of lifestyle and dietary behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, overall diet quality, physical activity, and other health-related behaviors. These factors are crucial as they can independently increase the risk of cancer and are often correlated with meat consumption habits. For example, individuals who eat significant amounts of unprocessed meat might also lead a less healthy lifestyle overall or engage in other behaviors that increase cancer risk.
 * For example in this study:
 * "We documented 1,735 CRCs (809 proximal colon, 514 distal colon, and 373 rectal cancers) in women during 2,439,732 person-years of follow-up in the NHS and 996 CRCs (342 proximal colon, 303 distal colon, and 216 rectal cancers) in men during 1,013,022 person-years of follow-up in the HPFS. Characteristics of study participants, averaged according to proportion of person-time in each category of intake, are shown in Table 1. Men and women with higher red meat consumption tended to have a higher BMI, lower physical activity, higher intake of alcohol, and lower intakes of fish, folate, calcium, and vitamin D compared to participants with lower red meat intake."

 * By not controlling for these confounders, these studies could incorrectly attribute the cause of increased cancer risk to unprocessed meat alone, when it could be due to a combination of factors associated with a particular lifestyle. This is why the methodology used in more recent studies, which include adjusting for such variables to isolate the impact of unprocessed meat alone, is crucial. These adjustments help provide a clearer picture of whether unprocessed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer risk or if the observed association is influenced by other confounding factors. This thorough approach aids in making more accurate public health recommendations based on sound scientific evidence. Itisme3248 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is something of a WP:TEXTWALL, with lots of unnecessary quotations. I will say this: WP:MEDRS outlines the type of sourcing we look for when discussing biomedical information, such as the health effects of a given subject. MEDRS explicitly excludes primary research - the ScienceDirect.com source listed above looks like a primary source to me (unless I'm reading it wrong?), so not worth discussing here.
 * The abstract of the Larsson/Orsini source, which is a meta-analysis, concludes with the sentence These results indicate that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, may increase all-cause mortality. For some reason, you missed this out of the quote you posted above. Regardless, there is too much here to expect anyone to read through and try to work out what it is you're getting at. I'd suggest that the above be hatted for readability's sake, and perhaps you could focus on addressing one issue/assertion and its sourcing at a time? Girth Summit  (blether)  12:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This wikipedia uses tons of primary sources. Therefore should they all be removed?
 * About the abstract of Larsson why did you completely ignore the previous part? The study clearly states that natural unprocessed meat is not associated with mortality rate.
 * "In a dose-response meta-analysis, consumption of processed meat and total red meat, but not unprocessed red meat, was statistically significantly positively associated with all-cause mortality in a nonlinear fashion. These results indicate that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, may increase all-cause mortality." Itisme3248 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've hatted the exceedingly long comment above.
 * Wikipedia as designed does not use tons of primary sources - we generally try to avoid primary sources, per WP:PRIMARY. I don't doubt that they exist in some badly written articles, but that is no sort of reason to start introducing them into Good Articles, and I repeat that for certain types of assertions, including assertions about biomedical information, they are not permitted at all.
 * I did not completely ignore the previous part - I just cut to the chase, which is the final sentence of their abstract that we have both now quoted to one another. Now, if you have some specific proposals for what we might want to do with these sources, bearing in mind 's very good point about the amount of coverage we should afford this facet of the subject in this particular article, I suggest that you make a concrete proposal for a change, and quote the sources that would support it, at the bottom of this section. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  16:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the studies i sent are not primary sources, they are meta analysis of many many studies. Meta analysis are much more credible than .gov sites that are politically biased. Itisme3248 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's great, so set out a specific proposal for a change, and explain which sources you believe support it, at the bottom of this section, being mindful of the due weight issues that have been set out. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, i will do it when i have more free time. Itisme3248 (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that the studies used as a source should be prioritized based on the number of confounding factors they account for and the length of their follow-up period to assess risks? Itisme3248 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree with that, we don't assess sources in that way as editors. The guidelines for identifying and weighing reliable sources are at WP:RS, and for this subject they are expanded upon at WP:MEDRS]. I don't think that the [[WP:OR policy quite comes into play here, since you are attempting to weigh the relevance of sources to rely upon for content rather than wanting to add any content to the article itself based on your own analysis. Nevertheless, your own analysis of which of these sources has more/fewer confounding factors is just that, your own thoughts on the matter. I doubt whether you will persuade anyone with it, and other editors will most likely ignore it - as they will with the relentless screeds of repetitive text you are filling this talk page with. You have still to make a single concrete proposal for a change (as in, 'in paragraph X, I propose changing 'blah blah blah' to 'waffle waffle waffle' based on this source'). Girth Summit  (blether)  07:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I concur again with Girth Summit here; in addition, the two discussion threads should not have been merged in this way, as they began separately and it is a clear breach of policy to manipulate existing discussion threads.

 * (edit conflict, again) I really do object most strongly to all Itisme3248's remarks here. The article's topic is "Meat", pure and simple. "Health effects" is a chapter of the article, and it has an extremely broad scope, including topics that you don't mention such as contamination. Your topic is something like The health effects of eating uncontaminated meat, which is a sub-sub-topic (at best) of this article, and it is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is not this article's job to cover every subsidiary topic of the very large subject of meat; instead, it correctly links to subtopics, and those articles do the work of explaining aspects of health, farming and much more. In a word, their contents do not belong here. All that this article should do on subtopics of health is to provide an extremely brief "summary style" paragraph with a link and a *general* citation to indicate that there is a subtopic covered elsewhere: and that it does, consistently.

 * You might find it helpful to consider this article as the root of a tree of topics and articles:

 * Meat
 * History of agriculture
 * Domestication
 * Intensive animal farming

...
 * Animal welfare

...
 * Meat industry
 * Animal slaughter

...
 * Meat spoilage

...
 * Health effects
 * Cancer
 * Heart disease
 * Contamination with toxins
 * Bacterial contamination

...
 * Sustainable consumption
 * Vegetarianism and religion
 * Psychology of eating meat

It can be seen that health effects such as heart disease are sub-sub-topics with respect to the subject of Meat. They can only be given the briefest of treatments here in this article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 * The health effects section completely misleads people and poses a serious health risk by implying that unprocessed meat aka normal natural meat you can buy from the butcher, will increase mortality rates.
 * Unprocessed meat is the most important part of the human diet. This page misleads readers into assuming that all meat is harmful and should be avoided, which is not supported by proper study findings.
 * High-quality cohort studies that take into account confounding factors clearly state that unprocessed red meat is not associated with increased mortality rates. However, this crucial detail is overshadowed by weaker studies that do not account for these confounding factors. Itisme3248 (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone who uses scientific articles on Wikipedia pages should carefully read studies like this before proceeding. It appears that many Wikipedia editors lack understanding or concern about confounding factors.
 * Assessing bias: the importance of considering confounding: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503514/ Itisme3248 (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chiswick Chap and Girth Summit. WP:SS tells us that high-level overview articles like Meat should be concise and refer to subarticles for details. @Itisme3248, if you insist in contributing in a manner contrary to the practices and rules of Wikipedia, you may be blocked from doing so.  Sandstein   14:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chiswick Chap and Girth Summit as well. This is largely a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue for this article, as already pointed out in the nice hierarchy sketch, and may be appropriate elsewhere if properly sourced with literature surveys (not primary sources). It is inappropriate here except in a footnote or in the briefest of mentions here given the very broad scope of this article. Mathglot (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Itisme3248 has claimed, "This Wikipedia article is citing very weak evidence and largely ignoring cohort studies that take into account confounding factors such as smoking, BMI, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle factors". Firstly, epidemiologists are not stupid. They adjust the data for many of these confounding factors. It's odd to argue that these studies have not adjusted for some of these. The user has obviously not read the systematic reviews cited on the article because they have adjusted the data for smoking, BMI etc. Show us some cohort data on this topic that doesn't adjust for BMI? They always adjust for BMI and smoking. It's hard to take seriously what this user is claiming. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they do not always adjust for BMI and smoking. In fact, many studies cited by .gov sites have come to the conclusion that unprocessed meat is harmful precisely because they often rely on studies that did not account for these confounding factors. It is naive to assume that every study adjusts for BMI, smoking, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle habits. It is essential to critically evaluate the methodology of each study before accepting its conclusions. It is difficult to take the claims made by users on this page seriously without such scrutiny.
 * In general, Wikipedia can be problematic for this reason, mosst editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies.
 * For example if there are 20 higher quality studies that contradict the claims cited on this page by one study, why are they being ignored? I noticed that this is a trend on wikipedia, they tend to be obsessed with what a .gov site said and the general consensus promoted by the media. Itisme3248 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This Wikipedia article is misleading in its presentation of the health effects of unprocessed meat, particularly by implying it increases mortality and other bad health effect rates.
 * The article fails to consider numerous cohort studies that account for confounding factors such as smoking, BMI, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle factors. These studies provide a more accurate assessment and generally do not show a significant increase in negative health effects or mortality rates from unprocessed meat. It relies on weak, unscientific evidence while ignoring robust cohort studies. This skews the article and misleads readers into believing that unprocessed meat is harmful without sufficient scientific backing.
 * Many studies cited here suffer from the correlation-causation fallacy. They do not adequately adjust for enough or even any confounding variables, leading to potentially incorrect conclusions. It is naive to assume that every study adjusts for all relevant factors like BMI, smoking, exercise, wealth, and other lifestyle habits
 * High-quality cohort Meta-analysis studies that consider multiple confounding factors are being overshadowed by weaker studies. These high-quality studies usually conclude that unprocessed red meat does not increase mortality rates, which is a crucial detail that should not be ignored.
 * By not accurately representing the evidence, this article poses a serious health risk. It may lead readers to erroneously avoid unprocessed meat, which is an important part of a balanced diet. Itisme3248 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of cohort studies adjust for confounders like BMI and smoking, if they didn't they wouldn't be any good, adjusting for these would be crucial. As stated, epidemiologists are not stupid. When cohorts are done, baseline characteristics like BMI, smoking, physical activity, race are logged.
 * Unprocessed red meat has been classified as a Group 2A carcinogen which means it probably causes cancer. High unprocessed red meat increases cancer risk, CVD and stroke risk. There is a strong consensus on this from dietetic and cancer organizations and we have 4 reviews on this on the Wikipedia article. Here is the World Health Organization "the existing evidence is clear that high consumption of red meat, and processed meat even more so, can have detrimental impacts on the health of populations and the planet" . You are making bold claims here without any evidence, "most editors have almost no understanding of scientific research methodologies". You are claiming that the systematic reviews on the Wikipedia article do not take into account BMI or smoking but you have not cited these sources. If you had actually read these reviews, you would see that is not the case. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , again this is bad-faith editing. There are good reviews found on the article in the health effects section, , . You have not explained why these sources are not "proper sources". Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you accuse me of bad-faith editing then i accuse you of being the one doing bad-faithing editing by cherry picking and ignoring the fact that the proper studies say that unprocessed meat is not linked with a higher mortality rate. Itisme3248 (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the same link you cite says, stop cherry picking. There is a big difference between unprocessed meat and grilling and processed meat. It's like comparing non smokers to smokers.:
 * "The associations between red meat consumption and harmful outcomes are generally tempered in short-term intervention studies, especially in dietary patterns consisting of moderate intake of unprocessed red meat and comparable unprocessed plant-source food intake (73, 74). However, the short-term nature of such studies means that only biomarkers can be assessed, not long-term health outcomes like NCD incidence. Several recent analyses have challenged some of the evidence on red meat and NCD risk as weak and insufficient for conclusive recommendations (75-77). Most notably, the Global Burden of Disease Study findings that diets high in unprocessed red meat were responsible for 896 000 deaths in 2019 (78) have been contested by re-analysis of this study and other recent meta-analyses (76, 79). A final consensus is yet to be established, although authors of the Global Burden of Disease study note that the next iteration of the study is likely to have lower estimates of deaths attributable to red meat (80). Overall, evidence from LMIC demonstrating a link between red meat and chronic disease outcomes is lacking. However, one pooled analysis of studies in Asian countries – which comprises many LMIC – showed no relationship with morbidity outcomes (81). The way in which red meat – as well as other types of meat – is prepared and processed appears to be linked with disease risk. High temperature cooking – such as grilling, frying, deep frying and barbecuing – produces higher amounts of harmful compounds, such as N-nitroso compounds, polycyclic aromatic compounds and heterocyclic aromatic amines, which have been suspected of being carcinogenic (82, 83). Low temperature cooking, such as boiling and stewing, produces lower amounts of these compounds. One Danish study found that consumption of barbecued and fried red meat is most harmful, and that 298 and 156 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) per 100 000 could be prevented, respectively, if replaced with roasted red meat" Itisme3248 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Moving goal posts, ignoring questions, failing to provide any evidence for your claims. You have stated many times on this talk-page the systemic reviews failed to take into account BMI and smoking. You were proven wrong on that because you know the reviews cited on this Wikipedia article took these into account so you change the subject. That is not playing fair! You also scan a WHO report for anything that supports your POV whilst ignoring same report says unprocessed red meat is "probably carcinogenic". The same report says heme iron is associated with metabolic disease.

 * "In 2015, IARC reviewed the evidence on red meat and cancer, and classified it as a Group 2A carcinogen, which means that it is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (11). IARC estimated that the risk increases by 17% (95% CI: 5-31) per 100 g of red meat consumed per day. Unprocessed red meat is also associated with other NCD risks, particularly when consumed in high amounts (the specific amounts vary by study) and when not part of a balanced diet alongside minimally processed plant-based foods (67, 68). The mechanisms behind this association are not fully understood, but some evidence points to high intake of heme iron (the type of iron found in animal-source foods) as associated with CVD, type 2 diabetes and metabolic disease (12, 69-71), despite some level of intake being beneficial for health as described above".

 * The WHO report was published in 2023. The latest Global Burden of Disease review findings for 54 countries were published in April 2024. A diet high in red meat has now been added as a risk factor to the GBD data sets. Here is the latest systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study . It found that a diet high in unprocessed red meat increases cardiovascular mortality. On average it ranked third in 54 countries as a dietary risk factor.

 * Nobody is denying that red meat has a good nutrient profile and it can be incorporated into a healthy balanced diet. If you read all the sources, the issue is high consumption of red meat which increases cancer and CVD risk. There is strong evidence that a diet high in red meat increases noncommunicable disease risk and this is supported by all cancer and dietetic organizations around the world. Some of these are cited in the "health effects" section. If you want to promote a diet high in red meat, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. We are not going to promote fringe views about diet here, we just cite what the reliable sources say. This conversation should be closed. Non-productive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment
I reviewed the article at GAN and was satisfied with the sourcing. We seem to have a single editor pushing a personal point of view here. Despite being fairly new to Wikipedia the editor has already managed to get him/herself blocked for making personal attacks and has also had to be warned about replacing cited material with his/her WP:OR. I do not think it productive to spend time arguing with this editor.  Tim riley  talk   07:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Note, I have just removed a comment from Itisme3248 as they are making personal attacks here and spamming the same content from above. I have reported this user at ANI Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I hold no brief for vegans (though I have to feed one every day) and I have had my differences with Psychologist Guy in the past, but I repeat that I find Itisme3248's bloated screeds a waste of everybody's time and agree that we should move on.  Tim riley  talk   20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Psychologist Guy has repeatedly made personal attacks against multiple people while accusing others of the same behavior. When I pointed this out in a comment, he deleted it, which is highly suspicious. It seems that he deletes my comments to hide his rule violations and then report me for rule-breaking to avoid repercussions.
 * This was my comment that Psychologist Guy deleted to hide his personal attacks on people he disagrees with:
 * Find me a study that accounts for multiple confounding factors such as BMI, smoking, age, exercise, macronutrient intake, supplement use, medical history, socioeconomic status, overall diet quality, race, and country of residence etc. and demonstrates that unprocessed meat from the butcher, cooked without grilling, increases the total mortality rate. It is easy to cherry-pick any food and claim it increases the risk of certain diseases while ignoring the overall impact on mortality rate.
 * I have provided meta-analyses that show the mortality rate is not increased by unprocessed meat consumption, yet editors ignore this evidence and accuse me of bias. For example,, accuse anyone providing scientific proof against weak evidence of being biased and hide behind Wikipedia rule-breaking accusations to bully new editors. By ignoring studies that demonstrate no increase in mortality rate and promoting a vegan agenda, he is inherently biased while accusing others of the same.
 * I did not even cherry pick the studies, i picked the ones i could find on top of google scholar.
 * How did this page pass the Good Article review? Many of the so-called "studies" cited here are unscientific, as they fail to account for confounding factors and rely on correlation-causation fallacies.
 * Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282
 * Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
 * https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471
 * Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/
 * Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/
 * Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study
 * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z
 *  Associations of unprocessed and processed meat intake with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 21 countries [Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) Study]: a prospective cohort study
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522004282
 * "Results: In the PURE study, during 9.5 y of follow-up, we recorded 7789 deaths and 6976 CVD events. Higher unprocessed red meat intake (≥250 g/wk vs. <50 g/wk) was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.02; P-trend = 0.14) or major CVD (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.11; P-trend = 0.72). Similarly, no association was observed between poultry intake and health outcomes. Higher intake of processed meat (≥150 g/wk vs. 0 g/wk) was associated with higher risk of total mortality (HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.10; P-trend = 0.009) and major CVD (HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.98; P-trend = 0.004).
 * Conclusions: In a large multinational prospective study, we did not find significant associations between unprocessed red meat and poultry intake and mortality or major CVD. Conversely, a higher intake of processed meat was associated with a higher risk of mortality and major CVD."
 * The risk associated with different types of meat consumption in this study was as follows:
 * Unprocessed red meat: Consuming 250 grams or more per week compared to less than 50 grams per week was not significantly associated with total mortality or major cardiovascular disease (CVD). The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 1.02), indicating a non-significant 7% reduction in risk, which statistically isn’t different from no effect. The HR for major CVD was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.11), showing virtually no association.
 * Processed meat: Consuming 150 grams or more per week compared to none at all was associated with a significantly higher risk of both total mortality and major CVD. The HR for mortality was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.08, 2.10), suggesting a 51% increased risk of death. The HR for major CVD was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.98), indicating a 46% increased risk of major cardiovascular events.
 *  Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
 * Study: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471
 * "For total red meat consumption, the corresponding relative risk for 120 g/day (∼1.5 servings/day) versus 20 g/day (∼1.5–2 servings/week) was 1.29 (95% CI: 1.20, 1.38). Unprocessed red meat consumption (5 studies) showed a statistically nonsignificant linear association with all-cause mortality (for a 100-g/day increase in consumption, RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.997, 1.20)."
 *  Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
 * Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10270853/
 * "Nine articles with seventeen prospective cohorts were eligible in this meta-analysis, including a total of 150 328 deaths. There was evidence of a non-linear association between processed meat consumption and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, but not for cancer mortality. For processed meat, the pooled relative risk with an increase of one serving per day was 1·15 (95 % CI 1·11, 1·19) for all-cause mortality (five studies; P<0·001 for linear trend), 1·15 (95 % CI 1·07, 1·24) for cardiovascular mortality (six studies; P<0·001) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·06, 1·11) for cancer mortality (five studies; P<0·001). Similar associations were found with total meat intake. The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations."
 * In the US, eating unprocessed red meat is linked to mortality risk, but this connection isn't seen in European or Asian populations.
 * The regional differences in the association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk could be influenced by variations in meat quality. Factors such as production practices, processing standards, and environmental factors may lead to differences in the nutritional composition and safety of meat products across regions. For example, variations in the use of hormones, antibiotics, and feed additives, as well as differences in livestock-raising practices (such as grass-fed vs. grain-fed), could contribute to differing health effects of red meat consumption between populations.
 * Additionally, it is likely that compared with European habits, red meat in the USA may be often barbecued or grilled, thus contributing to higher contents of polycyclic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines.
 *  Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time
 * Study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549221/
 * According to the analysis from two large cohort studies, there is a modest increase in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk associated with the consumption of processed red meat, particularly affecting the distal colon. Processed red meat consumption was linked to a higher CRC risk with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.15 for a 1 serving/day increase, and even more so for distal colon cancer (HR = 1.36). In contrast, the consumption of unprocessed red meat did not significantly increase the overall risk of CRC and was actually inversely associated with distal colon cancer risk (HR = 0.75 for a 1 serving/day increase).
 * These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between processed and unprocessed meats when considering dietary recommendations for CRC prevention. The studies underline the need for further investigation into how meat processing and the timing of consumption influence CRC risk across different parts of the colon and rectum.
 *  Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study
 * Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer
 * "We found weak evidence of harmful associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer; the mean RR at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake was 1.30 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 1.01–1.64), while the mean RR at 100 g d−1 was 1.37 (1.01–1.78) (Table 2 and Fig. 1), where the UIs account for between-study heterogeneity and other forms of uncertainty. We estimated the exposure-averaged burden of proof RR to be 1.06, indicating that consuming unprocessed red meat in the range of 15th to 85th percentiles of exposure (0 g d−1 to 98 g d−1) was associated with at least a 6% higher risk of colorectal cancer. This corresponds to an ROS of 0.06 and a two-star rating, consistent with weak evidence."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease
 * "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and breast cancer
 * "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of breast cancer. The BPRF value (averaged across the 15th to 85th percentiles of red meat consumption, 0–69 g d−1) was 1.03, which was substantially lower than the mean RR of 1.26 (0.98–1.56) and 1.26 (0.98–1.56) at 50 g d−1 and 100 g d−1, respectively. The corresponding ROS is 0.03 (Table 2 and Fig. 2), which translates to a two-star risk and means that unprocessed red meat intake is associated with at least a 3% higher risk of colorectal cancer. When accounting for between-study heterogeneity, the mean RR UI at different exposure levels spanned 1 (Table 2)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease
 * "We found weak evidence of a harmful association between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of IHD. The RR was 1.09 (0.99–1.18) at 50 g d−1 and 1.12 (0.99–1.25) at 100 g d−1 (Table 2 and Fig. 3). The corresponding exposure-averaged BPRF was 1.01, which translates to a ROS of 0.01 and a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of IHD incidence and mortality)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and type 2 diabetes
 * "We found evidence of weak harmful effects between unprocessed red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes, with a mean RR of 1.14 (0.97–1.32) at 50 g d−1 relative to no intake and a mean RR of 1.23 (0.96–1.52) at 100 g d−1 relative to no intake (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 2). The BPRF value was 1.01 and the corresponding ROS was 0.01, equating to a two-star rating at the lower threshold of two-star pairs (at the boundary between weak evidence and no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of type 2 diabetes)."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic stroke "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for ischemic stroke (averaged between 15th and 85th percentiles of red meat exposure) was 0.98 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 3), which put it opposite null from the mean RR of 1.15 (95% UI inclusive of between-study heterogeneity of 0.93–1.40) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of –0.02 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and increased risk of ischemic stroke."
 * Unprocessed red meat consumption and hemorrhagic stroke
 * "The exposure-averaged BPRF value for hemorrhagic stroke was 1.14 (Table 2 and Extended Data Fig. 4), which was opposite null from the mean RR of 0.87 (0.56–1.35) at 100 g d−1. The corresponding ROS of −0.13 resulted in a one-star rating, consistent with no evidence of an association between consumption of unprocessed red meat and decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke."
 *  The Importance of Accounting for Confounding Factors
 * When assessing the link between unprocessed meat consumption and colorectal cancer, it's essential to consider how earlier studies might have arrived at different conclusions due to not fully accounting for confounding factors. Confounding factors are variables that can influence both the exposure (in this case, unprocessed meat consumption) and the outcome (colorectal cancer), potentially skewing the results if not properly adjusted for in the analysis.
 * For instance, some studies suggesting an association between unprocessed meat and colon cancer may not have adequately adjusted for a range of lifestyle and dietary behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, overall diet quality, physical activity, and other health-related behaviors. These factors are crucial as they can independently increase the risk of cancer and are often correlated with meat consumption habits. For example, individuals who eat significant amounts of unprocessed meat might also lead a less healthy lifestyle overall or engage in other behaviors that increase cancer risk.
 * For example in this study:
 * "We documented 1,735 CRCs (809 proximal colon, 514 distal colon, and 373 rectal cancers) in women during 2,439,732 person-years of follow-up in the NHS and 996 CRCs (342 proximal colon, 303 distal colon, and 216 rectal cancers) in men during 1,013,022 person-years of follow-up in the HPFS. Characteristics of study participants, averaged according to proportion of person-time in each category of intake, are shown in Table 1. Men and women with higher red meat consumption tended to have a higher BMI, lower physical activity, higher intake of alcohol, and lower intakes of fish, folate, calcium, and vitamin D compared to participants with lower red meat intake."
 * By not controlling for these confounders, these studies could incorrectly attribute the cause of increased cancer risk to unprocessed meat alone, when it could be due to a combination of factors associated with a particular lifestyle. This is why the methodology used in more recent studies, which include adjusting for such variables to isolate the impact of unprocessed meat alone, is crucial. These adjustments help provide a clearer picture of whether unprocessed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer risk or if the observed association is influenced by other confounding factors. This thorough approach aids in making more accurate public health recommendations based on sound scientific evidence.
 * By not controlling for these confounders, these studies could incorrectly attribute the cause of increased cancer risk to unprocessed meat alone, when it could be due to a combination of factors associated with a particular lifestyle. This is why the methodology used in more recent studies, which include adjusting for such variables to isolate the impact of unprocessed meat alone, is crucial. These adjustments help provide a clearer picture of whether unprocessed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer risk or if the observed association is influenced by other confounding factors. This thorough approach aids in making more accurate public health recommendations based on sound scientific evidence.

 * Itisme3248 (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Psychologist Guy has repeatedly made personal attacks against multiple people while accusing others of the same behavior". This is misinformation. This is getting out of hand. I have not even typed to multiple people on this talk-page, nor made any personal attacks. I made some replies to you that contained no personal attacks. I do not appreciate these false claims. If you are going to make a claim, be honest and back it up with evidence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Meat


text:
1928–29 NHL season

The 1928–29 NHL season was the 12th season of the National Hockey League. Ten teams played 44 games each. This was the first Stanley Cup Finals that saw two United States-based teams compete for the cup. The Boston Bruins defeated the New York Rangers two games to none in the best-of-three final.

Notable rule changes
Forward passing was permitted from the neutral zone across the blue line into the attacking zone, as long as no offensive player preceded the puck into the attacking zone; forward passing within the attacking zone was still forbidden. Regular season overtime was changed to a 10-minute, non-sudden-death format, to be played in its entirety.

During this season, the NHL office started tabulating defensive statistics, such as shots stopped, saves made and save percentage.

The league was determined to increase scoring. In the final game of the season between the Rangers and Pittsburgh, forward passing in the attacking zone was allowed; kicking of the puck was allowed; and goalies were prohibited from holding the puck more than three seconds. The experiment was considered a success, and the changes were a part of the rules for the 1928–29 season.

Regular season
Ottawa continued in financial trouble and sold Punch Broadbent to the New York Americans. They continued to erode, and at one point, rumour had it that they would be sold to a Chicago group. Frank Ahearn, the Senators owner, denied this, but admitted that the team was for sale to the highest bidder.

The New York Americans, last place finishers in 1927–28, surprised everyone by occupying first place for much of the season in the Canadian Division. They were held up by the great play of defenceman Lionel Conacher and goaltender Roy Worters. However, the Montreal Canadiens dislodged the Americans and finished first. Boston, led by rookie Tiny Thompson in goal, led the American Division.

Bruins' player George Owen was the first NHL player to regularly wear headgear for protective purposes. Prior to this, the only time protective headgear was worn was to temporarily protect injuries. Fifty-one years later the NHL mandated the use of helmets. Craig MacTavish was the last NHL player to not wear a helmet, retiring in 1997.

The Chicago Black Hawks set records for goal scoring futility, scoring on average less than one goal per game (33), while giving up a league worst 85 goals against. In one stretch from February 7 through February 28, the Hawks were shut out in eight consecutive games. Forward Vic Ripley was the Hawks' leading goal scorer with only 11 goals and 2 assists for 13 points for the entire 44-game season.

The season produced a record 120 shutouts in the 220 games played. George Hainsworth, Canadiens goaltender, set an NHL record that remains unmatched through the 2015–16 season of 22 shutouts and a 0.92 goals against average. Seven other goaltenders hit double digits in shutouts.

Final standings
Note: W = Wins, L = Losses, T = Ties, Pts = Points, GF = Goals For, GA = Goals Against, PIM = Penalties in minutes

Note: Teams that qualified for the playoffs are highlighted in bold

Playoffs
The playoff format was revised to match the divisional first-place teams in a best-of-five semifinal. The divisional second-place teams and third-place teams played off in a two-game total-goals series to determine the participants for the other best-of-three semifinal. The semifinal winners then played off in a best-of-three series for the Cup.

Stanley Cup Finals
The Bruins won their first Stanley Cup defeating the Rangers. In the process, Boston became one of the few Cup winners in history to not lose a single game in the playoffs, and the last team until 1952 to go undefeated in the playoffs.

Awards
Frank Boucher won his second consecutive Lady Byng award and George Hainsworth won his third consecutive Vezina Trophy.

Scoring leaders
Note: GP = Games played, G = Goals, A = Assists, PTS = Points, PIM = Penalties in minutes Source: NHL.

Leading goaltenders
Note: GP = Games played; Mins = Minutes played; GA = Goals against; SO = Shutouts; GAA = Goals against average Source: hockey-reference.com

American Division

 * Boston Bruins: Art Ross
 * Chicago Black Hawks: Herb Gardiner and Dick Irvin
 * Detroit Cougars: Jack Adams
 * New York Rangers: Lester Patrick
 * Pittsburgh Pirates: Odie Cleghorn

Canadian Division

 * Montreal Canadiens: Cecil Hart
 * Montreal Maroons: Eddie Gerard
 * New York Americans: Tommy Gorman
 * Ottawa Senators: Dave Gill
 * Toronto Maple Leafs: Conn Smythe

Debuts
The following is a list of players of note who played their first NHL game in 1928–29 (listed with their first team, asterisk(*) marks debut in playoffs):
 * Tiny Thompson, Boston Bruins
 * Cooney Weiland, Boston Bruins
 * George Owen, Boston Bruins
 * Johnny Gottselig, Chicago Black Hawks
 * Mush March, Chicago Black Hawks
 * Herbie Lewis, Detroit Cougars
 * Georges Mantha, Montreal Canadiens
 * Armand Mondou, Montreal Canadiens
 * Baldy Northcott, Montreal Maroons
 * Dave Trottier, Montreal Maroons
 * Earl Robinson, Montreal Maroons
 * Red Horner, Toronto Maple Leafs
 * Andy Blair, Toronto Maple Leafs

Last games
The following is a list of players of note that played their last game in the NHL in 1928–29 (listed with their last team):
 * Cy Denneny, Boston Bruins
 * Duke Keats, Chicago Black Hawks
 * Dick Irvin, Chicago Black Hawks
 * Red Green, Detroit Cougars
 * Herb Gardiner, Montreal Canadiens
 * Punch Broadbent, New York Americans

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

title: 1928–29 NHL season


text:
User talk:Jgsilva

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ;) --Lgrave 10:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Jgsilva


text:
User:Tes~enwiki

Hi

title: User:Tes~enwiki


text:
User talk:Tes~enwiki

Hi!

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

lots of issues | leave me a message 11:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Tes. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Tes~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tes~enwiki


text:
Talk:Coriolis force/proposed

This page was inserted as the new version on 2005/08/22. William M. Connolley 11:08:02, 2005-08-22 (UTC).

---

In physics, the Coriolis effect is the apparent deflection of a freely moving object as observed from a rotating frame of reference. The effect can be accounted for in the rotating frame by the introduction of the fictitious Coriolis force which then balances the the equations of the apparent motion. The effect is named after Gaspard-Gustave Coriolis, a French scientist, who discussed it in 1835, though the mathematics appeared in the tidal equations of Laplace in 1778.

One example of the Coriolis effect is mid-latitude cyclones.

Formula
The formula for the Coriolis acceleration is

 * $$-2\boldsymbol\omega\times\mathbf{v}$$

where v is the velocity in the rotating system, omega is the angular velocity (effectively, the rotation rate). The equation may be multiplied by the mass of the relevant object to produce the Coriolis force.

At a given rotation speed, the acceleration will be proportional to the velocity and the sine of the angle between the velocity vector and the axis.

The Coriolis effect is the behavior added by the Coriolis force. The formula implies that the Coriolis force is perpendicular both to the velocity of the moving mass and to the rotation axis. So in particular:
 * if the velocity is zero, the Coriolis force is zero
 * if the velocity is parallel to the rotation axis, the Coriolis force is zero
 * if the velocity is straight (perpendicularly) inward to the axis, the force will follow the direction of rotation

When considering atmospheric dynamics, the Coriolis acceleration (strictly a 3-d vector in the formula above) appears only in the horizontal equations due to the neglect of products of small quantities and other approximations. The term that appears is then

 * $$- f \mathbf{k} \times (u,v)$$

where $$\mathbf{k}$$ is a unit local vertical, $$f = 2 \omega \sin(\text{latitude})$$ is called the Coriolis parameter and (u,v) are the horizontal components of the velocity.

Flow around a low pressure area

If a low pressure area forms in the atmosphere, air will tend to flow in towards it, but will be deflected perpendicular to its velocity by the Coriolis force. A system of equilibrium can then establish itself creating circular movement, or a cyclonic flow.

The force balance is largely between the pressure gradient force acting towards the low-pressure area and the Coriolis force acting away from the center of the low pressure. Instead of flowing down the gradient, the air tends to flow perpendicular to the air-pressure gradient and forms a cyclonic flow. This is an example of a more general case of geostrophic flow in which air flows along isobars. On a non-rotating planet the air would flow along the straightest possible line, quickly leveling the air pressure. Note that the force balance is thus very different from the case of "inertial circles" (see below) which explains why mid-latitude cycles are larger by an order of magnitude than inertial circle flow would be.

This pattern of deflection, and the direction of movement, is called Buys-Ballot's law. The pattern of flow is called a cyclone. In the Northern Hemisphere the direction of movement around a low-pressure area is counterclockwise. In the Southern Hemisphere, the direction of movement is clockwise because the rotational dynamics is a mirror image there. Cyclones cannot form on the equator, and they rarely travel towards the equator, because in the equatorial region the coriolis parameter is small, and exactly zero on the equator.

Draining bathtubs/toilets
People often ask whether the Coriolis effect determines the direction in which bathtubs or toilets drain, and whether water always drains in one direction in the Northern Hemisphere, and in the other direction in the Southern Hemisphere. The answer is almost always no. The Coriolis effect is a few orders of magnitude smaller than other random influences on drain direction, such as the geometry of the sink, toilet, or tub; whether it is flat or tilted; and the direction in which water was initially added to it. If one takes great care to create a flat circular pool of water with a small, smooth drain; to wait for eddies caused by filling it to die down; and to remove the drain from below (or otherwise remove it without introducing new eddies into the water) – then it is possible to observe the influence of the Coriolis effect in the direction of the resulting vortex. There is a good deal of misunderstanding on this point, as most people (including many scientists) do not realize how small the Coriolis effect is on small systems. This is less of a puzzle once one remembers that the earth revolves once per day but that a bathtub takes only minutes to drain. The increase in rotational speed around the plug hole is because water is being drawn towards the plughole and so its radius of its mass to the point it is spinning around decreases so its rate of rotation increases from the low background level to a noticeable spin in order to conserve its angular momentum (the same effect as bringing your arms in on a swivel chair making it spin faster)

The time and space scales are important in determining the importance of the coriolis effect. Weather systems are large enough to feel the curvature of the earth and generally rotate less than once a day so a similar timescale to the earth's rotation so the coriolis effect is dominant. An unguided missile, if fired far enough, will travel far enough and be in the air long enough to notice the effect but the dominant effect is the direction it was fired in. Long range shells landed close to, but to the right of where they were aimed until this was noted (or left if they were fired in the southern hemisphere, though most weren't). You don't worry about which hemisphere you're in when playing catch in the garden though this is exactly the same physics at a smaller scale. A bathtub is best approximated (in terms of scale) by a game of catch.

Coriolis flow meter
A practical application of the Coriolis effect is the mass flow meter, an instrument that measures the mass flow rate of a fluid through a tube. The operating principle was introduced in 1977 by Micro Motion Inc. Simple flow meters measure volume flow rate, which is proportional to mass flow rate only when the density of the fluid is constant. If the fluid has varying density, or contains bubbles, then the volume flow rate multiplied by the density is not an accurate measure of the mass flow rate. The Coriolis mass flow meter operating principle essentially involves rotation, though not through a full circle. It works by inducing a vibration of the tube through which the fluid passes, and subsequently monitoring and analysing the inertial effects that occur in response to the combination of the induced vibration and the mass flow.

Ballistics
In firing projectiles over a significant distance, the rotation of the Earth must be taken into account. During its flight, the projectile moves in a straight line (not counting gravitation and air resistance for now). The target, co-rotating with the Earth, is a moving target, so the gun must be aimed not directly at the target, but at a point where the projectile and the target will arrive simultaneously.

Molecular physics
In polyatomic molecules, the molecule motion can be described by a rigid body rotation and internal vibration of atoms about their equilibrium position. As a result of the vibrations of the atoms, the atoms are in motion relative to the rotating coordinate system of the molecule. A Coriolis effects will therefore be present and will cause the atoms to move in a direction perpendicular to the original oscillations. This leads to a mixing in molecular spectra between the rotational and vibrational levels.

Visualisation of the Coriolis effect

To demonstrate the Coriolis effect, a turntable can be used. If the turntable is flat, then the centrifugal force, which always acts outwards from the rotation axis, would lead to objects being forced out off the edge. If the turntable has a bowl shape, then the component of gravity tangenital to the bowl surface will tend to counteract the centrifugal force. If the bowl is parabolic, and spun at the appropriate rate, then gravity exactly counteracts the centrifugal force and the only net force (bar friction, which can be minimised) acting is then the Coriolis force. If the turntable is a dish with a rim and filled with liquid, then when the liquid is rotating it naturally assumes a parabolic shape (for the same reasons). If a liquid that sets after several hours is used, such as a synthetic resin, a permanent shape is obtained.

Disks cut from cylinders of dry ice can be used as pucks, moving around almost frictionlessly over the surface of the parabolic turntable, allowing dynamic phenomena to show themselves. To also get a view of the motions as seen from a rotating point of view, a video-camera is attached to the turntable in such a way that the camera is co-rotating with the turntable. This type of setup, with a parabolic turntable, at the center about a centimeter deeper than the rim, is used at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for teaching purposes.

Inertial circles

If an object moves in a rotating system subject only to the Coriolis force, it will move in a circular trajectory called an 'inertial circle'.

In an inertial circle, the force balance is between the centrifugal force (directed outwards) and the Coriolis force (directed inwards). The dynamics is thus quite different to mid-latitude cyclones or hurricanes, in which cases the force balance is between the pressure gradient force (directed inwards) and the Coriolis force (directed out). In particular, this means that the direction of orbit is oppositite to that of mid-latitude cyclones.

The frequency of these oscillations is given by f, the coriolis parameter; and their radius by :

 * $$v/f$$,

where v is the velocity of the air mass. On the Earth, a typical mid-latitude value for f is 10-4; hence for a typical atmospheric speed of 10 m/s the radius is 100 km, with a period of about 14 hours. For a turntable rotating about once every 6 seconds, f is one, hence the radius of the circles, in cm, is numerically the same as the speed, in cm/s.

The centrigufal force is $$v^2/r$$ and the Coriolis force $$vf$$, hence the forces balance when $$v^2/r = vf$$, i.e. $$v/f = r$$, giving the expression above for the radius of the circles.

If the rotating system is a turntable, then $$f$$ is constant and the trajectories are exact circles. On a rotating planet, $$f$$ varies with latitude and the circles do not exactly close.

Closer to the equator the component of the velocity towards or away from the Earth's axis is smaller, this component varies as $$sin(latitude)$$, and this is taken into account in the parameter f. For a given velocity the oscillations are smallest at the poles as shown by the picture and would increase indefinitely at the equator, except the dynamics ceases to apply close to the equator. On a rotating planet the oscillations are only approximately circular and do not form closed loops as indicated in the drastically simplified picture.

Physics and meteorology references

 * Gill, AE 'Atmospher-Ocean dynamics'', Academic Press, 1982.

 * Durran, D. R., 1993: Is the Coriolis force really responsible for the inertial oscillation? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 74, 2179–2184; Corrigenda. Bulletin of the  American Meteorological Society, 75, 261  1200 KB PDF-file of the above article

 * Durran, D. R., and S. K. Domonkos, 1996: An apparatus for demonstrating the inertial oscillation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 77, 557–559. 1300 KB PDF-file of the above article

 * Marion, Jerry B. 1970, Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems, Academic Press.

 * Persson, A., 1998 How do we Understand the Coriolis Force? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79, 1373-1385. 374 KB PDF-file of the above article

 * Symon, Keith. 1971, Mechanics, Addison-Wesley

 * Norman Ph. A., 2000 An Explication of the Coriolis Effect. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 299–303. 200 KB PDF-file of the above article

Historical references

 * Grattan-Guinness, I., Ed., 1994: Companion Encyclopedia of the History and Philosophy of the Mathematical Sciences. Vols. I and II. Routledge, 1840 pp.  1997: The Fontana History of the Mathematical Sciences. Fontana, 817 pp. 710 pp.

 * Khrgian, A., 1970: Meteorology—A Historical Survey. Vol. 1. Keter Press, 387 pp.

 * Kuhn, T. S., 1977: Energy conservation as an example of simultaneous discovery. The Essential Tension, Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, University of Chicago Press, 66–104.

 * Kutzbach, G., 1979: The Thermal Theory of Cyclones. A History of Meteorological Thought in the Nineteenth Century. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 254 pp.

title: Talk:Coriolis force/proposed


text:
Al Mukadam

Al Mukadam (born Ali Mukaddam; April 6, 1984) is a Canadian actor. He is known for his performance as Ray Brennan in the Family Channel television series Radio Free Roscoe (2003–2005).

Career
Mukadam started his career as a child actor, starring in several Canadian television series, including Mythic Warriors: Guardians of the Legend, Anne of Green Gables: The Animated Series, and Degrassi: The Next Generation. He transitioned into more mature roles with his performance as high school student Ray Brennan in the Family Channel television series Radio Free Roscoe (2003–2005).

In 2015, Mukadam starred in the independent film People Hold On, as part of an ensemble cast that included Chloe Rose, Katie Boland, and Paula Brancati, which was nominated for a Canadian Screen Award. That year, he also starred and co-produced the comedic web series We Are Disorderly, which premiered at a screening in Toronto that was attended by Drake and other Degrassi alum.

In 2016, he appeared in the feature film Miss Sloane, opposite Jessica Chastain. The film had its world premiere at the AFI Fest on November 11, 2016, and also screened at the Napa Valley Film Festival on November 13, 2016.

In 2018, he played a supporting role in the CTV police procedural television series The Detail. Developed by Ley Lukins who served as co-showrunner and co-executive producer alongside Adam Pettle, The Detail was a 10-episode adaptation of the UK smash Scott & Bailey and starred Grimes-Beech as street-smart Detective Jacqueline “Jack” Cooper, who has keen investigative skills but a messy personal life. It was cancelled after one season.

Director

 * 2008: Mookie's Law (short) (credited as Al Mukadam)
 * 2010: Up & Down (short)
 * 2010: Running Boy (short)
 * 2010: Knock Knock (short)

Producer

 * 2008: Mookie's Law (short) (credited as Al Mukadam)
 * 2010: Up & Down (short)
 * 2010: Running Boy (short)
 * 2010: Knock Knock (short)
 * 2011: Welcome Back (documentary)

title: Al Mukadam


text:
Historical Dictionary of Switzerland

The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse; abbr. DHS) is an encyclopedia on the history of Switzerland. It aims to present the history of Switzerland in the form of an encyclopaedia, published both on paper and on the internet, in three of the country's national languages: German, French and Italian. When it was completed at the end of 2014, the paper version contained around 36,000 articles divided into thirteen volumes. At the same time, a reduced edition of the dictionary has been published in Romansh under the title Lexicon istoric retic (LIR), and constitutes the first specialist dictionary in the Rhaeto-Romance, Switzerland.

The encyclopedia is published by a foundation under the patronage of the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences (SAGW/ASSH) and the Swiss Historical Society (SGG-SHH) and is financed by national research grants.

A tradition of historical dictionaries
Since the time of the illustrated chronicles of Diebold Schilling the Elder in the fifteenth century, numerous historical works have appeared in Switzerland: the Chronicon Helveticum by Aegidius Tschudi (1569) contains around a thousand documents, the twenty volumes of the encyclopaedic dictionary Allgemeines Helvetisches, Eydgenössisches, Oder Schweitzerisches Lexicon (General Helvetic, Federal or Swiss Lexicon) were written by Zurich banker and politician Johann Jacob Leu between 1747 and 1765,. followed by the Dictionnaire géographique et statistique de la Suisse (Geographical and Statistical Dictionary of Switzerland) by Markus Lutz.

The last Swiss historical dictionary to appear between the two world wars was the Dictionnaire historique et biographique de la Suisse (DHBS, Historical & Biographical Dictionary of Switzerland), published in seven volumes between 1921 and 1934. Edited by Victor Attinger from Neuchâtel, it was a financial failure, mainly because of the lack of supervision of the authors, who were largely recruited by the cantonal archivists associated with the project.

Genesis of the project
As early as the 1950s, several personal initiatives - including those of Federal Councillors Philipp Etter in 1958 and Hans Peter Tschudi a few years later - were launched with the aim of creating a successor to the DHBS, whose financial failure, which had by then caused the bankruptcy of its publishing company, was holding back various publishers and historians from embarking on a new adventure, according to historian Marco Jorio, editor-in-chief of DHS, quoted by newspaper Le Temps. However, the idea was taken up by two publishers in the early 1980s, and in 1983 the Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences (ASSH) commissioned two professors, Carl Pfaff from the University of Fribourg and Alain Dubois from the University of Lausanne. Together with the archivist of the Canton of Lucerne, they initiated the DHS project, which was soon supported by the Swiss Historical Society.

In 1987, the Federal Assembly approved funds to launch the project, as part of the celebrations marking the 700th anniversary of the Swiss Confederation in 1991, and in parallel with several historical or historiographical publications, such as the six-volume Schweizer Lexikon (Swiss Lexicon). The following year, the "Foundation Historical Dictionary of Switzerland" was created, with the dual aim of publishing a multi-volume historical dictionary that would reflect recent historical research while remaining accessible to a wide audience, and of publishing this dictionary in the form of an electronic database.

Online edition
On 4 September 1998, the first 8,000 articles (equivalent to three volumes) of the online edition were presented in three languages to the media in Berne. This free launch had been preceded by the creation of an online prototype in August 1997, accessible only to Foundation staff. Such was the success of this online prototype that the Foundation Board decided, in autumn 1997, not to release the first paper volume in 1998 as planned, but to change the sequence of publications and start with the website before publishing the first book. This decision also meant that articles already written could be made available more quickly, without the need for alphabetical order.

In 2002, the site had 11300 entries available in at least one of the three languages. The site, which is deliberately sober and devoid of illustrations, cost almost 10000 francs to create and is updated every four weeks. Due to lack of funds, the idea of producing a CD-ROM was abandoned, while the development of a keyword search engine was delayed. After the website went online, work on the paper version of the encyclopedia resumed. On 14 June 1999, a new contract was signed with the Schwabe publishing house to compensate for the departure of two of the three publishers involved in the project, following a change in their editorial line. This announcement of collaboration, coupled with a 500,000-franc subsidy from the Federal Council to cover the printing costs of the first ten volumes, meant that the first volume could be released in 2002, despite criticism that the paper version was being abandoned in favor of the online version.

Finally, on 31 October 2002, the first of the planned twelve volumes was officially presented in German ("Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz" and published by Schwabe), French (published by Gilles Attinger in Hauterive) and Italian ("Dizionario storico della Svizzera" and published by Armando Dadò in Locarno) at a ceremony held at the Swiss National Library and presided over by Jean Guinand, President of the Foundation, and Ruth Dreifuss, Federal Councillor for Culture. Subsequent volumes are published at the rate of one per year, and are released every autumn.

Print edition
The encyclopedia is published simultaneously in three of Switzerland's national languages: German (Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz, HLS, in red), French (Dictionnaire Historique de la Suisse, DHS, in blue) and Italian (Dizionario Storico della Svizzera, DSS, in yellow). The first of a total of 13 volumes was published in 2002 and the final volume was in 2014. All volumes are available in German, French and Italian, and an abbreviated version in 2 volumes (3100 articles) is available in Romansh (Lexicon Istoric Retic).

The 36,000 headings are grouped in:
 * 1) Biographies (35%)
 * 2) Articles on families and genealogy (10%)
 * 3) Articles on places (municipalities, cantons, other nation states, fortresses, signories, abbeys, archeological sites) (30%)
 * 4) Subject articles (historical phenomena and terms, institutions, events) (25%)

Lexicon Istoric Retic
A reduced edition of the dictionary was also published in Romansh with the title Lexicon Istoric Retic (LIR), the first specialized dictionary of Rhaeto-Romanic Switzerland. Its aim was "to present, as comprehensively as possible, the historical and cultural development of the Rhaetian and Graubünden area, i.e. the present trilingual canton of Grisons and some neighbouring regions". The printed dictionary comprises 3,200 articles on regional biographies, places and events; the first volume appeared at the end of 2010, the second in 2012 :

The e-LIR website has been online since 2004. According to those responsible for the site, it is the first dictionary in the world where editorial work is carried out directly on the Internet.

Organisation
The staff who produced the dictionary fall into two categories: the forty or so employees of the foundation in Berne or at the Bellinzona and Chur branches, the freelance collaborators who include 75 translators, a hundred or so advisors working at various Swiss and foreign universities, as well as in archives throughout the country, and above all almost 2,500 authors.

Marco Jorio headed the company from 1988 to 2014. The company is organized into four language departments, an iconography department, an IT department and an administrative department responsible for secretarial and accounting tasks. This organization is mandated by the DHS Foundation, which in turn is governed by a Foundation Board comprising a maximum of thirteen members, appointed by the Swiss Historical Society, the ASSH, the Swiss Confederation, the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Association of Swiss Archivists. Presidents of the Foundation Board have been Georges-André Chevallaz from 1988 to 1992, Ernst Rüesch from 1993 to 1996, Jean Guinand from 1997 to 2004, Peter Schmid (politician) from 2005 to 2010 and Martine Brunschwig Graf from 2011 to 2016.

On 1 January 2017, the DHS Foundation completed its work and passed the baton to the ASSH.

Editorial choices
While the contents of the DHS cover all historical periods in present-day Switzerland, greater importance is given to certain periods, depending on the historical material available: for example, 10% of the articles cover the period from the Palaeolithic to the Early Middle Ages, while 20% cover the period between the World War I and the end of the 20th century.

Before writing the first article, the complete list of entries was defined on the basis of criteria defined in advance. The 36,000 articles fall into four categories: biographies, which account for 35% of the total number of articles; families and genealogy, which make up around 10%; geography (including communes, cantons, bailliages or archaeological sites), which accounts for almost a third of the total; the remaining 25% or so are divided into various themes, such as historical phenomena and concepts, or institutions.

The size of the articles is not fixed and varies, depending on the subject, from a few lines to several pages. The articles in the thirteen volumes are illustrated with historical images from museums, print cabinets and archives, accompanied by captions, maps and charts. These images were collected and captioned by Pierre Chessex and Werner Bosshard from 1990 to 2014. The illustrations are reproduced in the electronic DHS. The writing of the articles, the inputting of the list of entries and the management of the project itself all make extensive use of computer support. As early as 1992, texts were entered in an Standard Generalized Markup Language compliant format. This enabled automatic conversion into the HTML format used for web pages.

title: Historical Dictionary of Switzerland


text:
Shenae Grimes

Shenae Grimes-Beech (born October 24, 1989 ), previously credited as Shenae Grimes, is a Canadian actress. She portrayed Annie Wilson on The CW series 90210, a spin-off of Fox's Beverly Hills, 90210. Prior to that, she had a recurring role on the television series Naturally, Sadie, and played Darcy Edwards on the CTV series Degrassi: The Next Generation for four seasons.

Early life
Grimes was born in Toronto, Ontario, on October 24, 1989. She interned at Toronto's Fashion Television as part of her high school education.

Acting
Grimes began recurring as Darcy Edwards on Degrassi: The Next Generation in 2004, and became a series regular in 2006. In 2008, Grimes left the series and Canada after being cast as Annie Wilson in '90210', the CW's spin-off of Beverly Hills, 90210.

She also appeared in Picture This with Ashley Tisdale and with her former Degrassi: The Next Generation co-star Lauren Collins, and then in True Confessions of a Hollywood Starlet alongside singer JoJo.

In 2009, Grimes was named one of the world's most beautiful people, without makeup, by People magazine. She also appeared in a music video for rock band Our Lady Peace's single "All You Did Was Save My Life".

Grimes appears in the 2010 silent fashion short film Unzipped. She also participated in YouTuber Freddie Wong's video "Gun Size Matters". She made a cameo in the horror film Scream 4, released in April 2011.

In 2011, she traveled to Japan with her 90210 costars AnnaLynne McCord and Jessica Stroup to attend the Asia Girls Explosion (AGE) in Tokyo, after filming 90210 third-season finale. Grimes was caught up in Japan due to the events of the tsunami and earthquake. According to the actress, she was at Buddha's temple at the time when the earthquakes first occurred. Consequently, she started a campaign called "Spread The Heart" with the aim of supporting Japan by victim relief after the events of the tsunami and earthquakes. Many celebrities joined the campaign which later became a big movement.

In May 2011, during her 90210 hiatus, she took a six-week internship at Teen Vogue in New York City. She stated that working as an editor for a fashion magazine has always been her dream. In the fall of 2011, she directed a music video for Megan and Liz's original song "Are You Happy Now?" to raise awareness about anti-bullying, in partnership with DoSomething.org. In 2013, Grimes starred in the film Sugar about a runaway girl living on the streets of Venice, Los Angeles.

In 2018, Grimes began playing homicide detective Jacqueline Cooper on CTV's police drama The Detail; the role marks her first time playing an adult character.

Other projects
Grimes has graced the covers of numerous fashion magazines, including US's Nylon, Vervegirl, Saturday Night Magazine, Teen Prom and Dirrty Glam. She also modeled for Teen Vogue and Complex. She has appeared in television commercials for Coffee Crisp.

In 2014, she became the brand ambassador for the Montreal-based Annabelle Cosmetics. As the face of the cosmetics line, she appeared in print and television advertisements to promote the products. Grimes and husband Josh Beech started their own clothing line in 2014 called "Two Halves." The line featured jewelry and clothes that were sold online and at the Toronto-based boutique Jonathon + Olivia.

Personal life
Grimes began dating British model and musician Josh Beech in May 2012. In December 2012, after nine months of dating, Grimes announced that she and Beech were engaged. They were married on May 10, 2013 in Ashford, Kent, England. In May 2018, the couple announced that they were expecting their first child; their daughter was born in September 2018. Their second child, a son, was born in August 2021.

On December 20, 2019, Grimes announced on her Instagram page that she had become an American citizen, and now holds dual Canadian-American citizenship. Grimes is an atheist.

title: Shenae Grimes


text:
Sonja Kirchberger

Sonja Kirchberger (born 9 November 1964 in Vienna, Austria ) is an Austrian actress.

From 1974 to 1978  she was a dancer in the Ballet of the Opera in Vienna (Wiener Oper). She became popular to the European public as Coco, a sensuous but dangerous seductress in the 1988 German blockbuster . Till now she was to be seen in about 40 movies, some Italian and French productions, and English in Seven Servants (1996) by Daryush Shokof with Anthony Quinn, but mostly in German TV/cinema.

Sonja Kirchberger is mother of a girl and a boy.

Partial filmography

 * The Venus Trap (1988), as Coco
 * Peter Strohm: Einsteins Tod (1991, TV), as Anita Claasen
 * Sissi la valse des cœurs (a.k.a. Sisi und der Kaiserkuss, 1991), as Néné
 * L'Alerte rouge (1991, TV film), as Inge Bauer
 * The True Story About Men and Women (1992), as Eva
 * Amok (1993 film) (1993), as Mistress in Munich
 * Hunt for the Blue Diamond (1993), as Barbara Latouche
 * Anwalt Abel: Rufmord (1994, TV), as Stella
 * Padre papà (1996, TV film), as Iris
 * Peanuts – The Bank Pays Everything (1996), as Madeleine
 * Seven Servants (1996), as Maid
 * Tanz auf dem Vulkan (1996, TV miniseries), as Olga
 * Un prete tra noi: La sindrome di Stoccolma (1997, TV), as Claudia Gruber
 * The King of St. Pauli (1998, TV miniseries), as Lajana
 * Gigolo – Bei Anruf Liebe (1998, TV film), as Lisa
 * In fondo al cuore (1998, TV film), as Carla
 * Benzin im Blut (1999, TV series, 14 episodes), as Jeannine Jourdan
 * Kill Me Softly – Frauenmord in Frankfurt (2000, TV film), as Police Inspector Anna Göllner
 * Die Liebende (a.k.a. Blutsbande, 2000, TV film), as Mona
 * Der Runner (2000, TV film), as Danielle Reuter
 * Der schwarze Spiegel (2000, TV film), as Cora Talheim
 * Lenya (film) (2001, TV film), as Kundrie
 * Umwege des Herzens (2001, TV film), as Sarah von Wytersheim
 * How Do You Change Your Parents? (2003, TV film), as Lydia Lufft
 * Sommernachtstod (2003, TV film), as Police Inspector Anna Göllner
 * Das böse Mädchen (2003, TV film), as Police Inspector Anna Göllner
 * Neues vom Wixxer (2007), as Lady Dickham
 * Die Bienen – Tödliche Bedrohung (2008, TV film), as Susanna Bergmann
 * Snow White (2009 film) (2009, TV film), as Evil Queen
 * Sources of Life (2013), as Marie Freytag
 * A World Beyond (2013 film) (2013, TV film), as Emmy Hartwig
 * Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn (2014), as Widow Douglas
 * Gut zu Vögeln (2016), as Sonja

title: Sonja Kirchberger