text:
Law & Order

Law & Order is an American police procedural and legal drama television series created by Dick Wolf and produced by Wolf Entertainment and Universal Television, launching the Law & Order franchise.

Law & Order aired its entire run on NBC, premiering on September 13, 1990, and completing its 20th season on May 24, 2010. On September 28, 2021, after an 11-year hiatus, NBC announced that the series would be revived for a 21st season, which premiered on February 24, 2022. The revival saw the debut of new regular cast members and the reprise of District Attorney Jack McCoy and Detective Kevin Bernard by series veterans Sam Waterston and Anthony Anderson, respectively. The 22nd season premiered on September 22, 2022. On April 10, 2023, the series was renewed for its 23rd season, which premiered on January 18, 2024. On March 21, 2024, the series was renewed for a 24th season.

Set and filmed in New York City, the series follows a two-part approach: the first half-hour is the investigation of a crime (usually murder) and apprehension of a suspect by New York City Police Department homicide detectives, the second half is the prosecution of the defendant by the Manhattan district attorney's office. Plots are based on real cases that recently made headlines, although the motivation for the crime and the perpetrator may be much different.

The show started using revolving-door casting in season 2. Among the longest-running main cast members are Steven Hill as District Attorney Adam Schiff (seasons 1–10), Jerry Orbach as Detective Lennie Briscoe (seasons 3–14), S. Epatha Merkerson as Lieutenant Anita Van Buren (seasons 4–20), Sam Waterston as District Attorney Jack McCoy (season 5–23; formerly Executive Assistant District Attorney), and Jesse L. Martin as Detective Ed Green (seasons 10–18).

Law & Order's 23 seasons are second only to its spin-off Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999–present) for the longest-running live-action scripted American primetime series. The success of the series has led to the creation of additional shows, making Law & Order a franchise, with a television film, several video games, and international adaptations of the series. It has won and has been nominated for numerous awards over the years, including a number of Emmy Awards.

History and development
In 1988, Dick Wolf developed a concept for a new television series that would depict a relatively optimistic picture of the American criminal justice system. He initially toyed with the idea of calling it Night & Day but then hit upon the title Law & Order. The first half of each episode would follow two homicide detectives (a senior and a junior detective) and their commanding officer as they investigate a violent crime.

The second half of the episode would follow the district attorney's office and the courts as two prosecutors, with advice from the district attorney, attempt to convict the accused. Through this, Law & Order would be able to investigate some of the larger issues of the day by focusing on stories that were based on real cases making headlines.

Wolf took the idea to then-president of Universal Television Kerry McCluggage, who pointed out the similarity to a 1963 series titled Arrest and Trial, which lasted one season. The two watched the pilot of that series, in which a police officer (Ben Gazzara) arrested a man for armed robbery in the first half, and the defense attorney, played by Chuck Connors, gets the perpetrator off as the wrong guy in the second half; this was the formula of the show every week.

Wolf decided that, while his detectives would occasionally also be fallible, he wanted a fresh approach to the genre, to go from police procedural to prosecution with a greater degree of realism. In addition, the prosecution would be the hero, a reversal of the usual formula in lawyer dramas.

Initially, Fox ordered 13 episodes based on the concept alone, with no pilot. Then-network head Barry Diller reversed the decision. Although he loved the idea, he did not believe it was a "Fox show". Wolf then went to CBS, which ordered a pilot, "Everybody's Favorite Bagman", written by Wolf about corrupt city officials involved with the mob. The network liked the pilot but did not order it because there were no breakout stars.

In the summer of 1989, NBC's top executives, Brandon Tartikoff and Warren Littlefield, screened the pilot and liked it; but they were concerned the intensity of the series could not be repeated week after week. However, by 1990, NBC executives had enough confidence that the innovative show could appeal to a wide audience that they ended up ordering the series for a full season.

Filming
The series was shot on location in New York City and is known for its extensive use of local color. The interior sets were located at Chelsea Piers. In early episodes courtroom scenes were shot at Tweed Courthouse before a courtroom set was built. The exterior of the fictional 27th precinct police station was shot outside the New York County Surrogate's on Chambers St, while hospital scenes were filmed at the VA New York Harbour Medical Centre on East 23rd St, and Goldwater Memorial Hospital before its demolition.

In later seasons, New York City mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, attorney William Kunstler and Bronx Congressman José Serrano all appeared on the show as themselves. Local personalities also had recurring cameos as fictional characters, such as Donna Hanover and Fran Lebowitz as judges. On September 14, 2004, in New York City, a road leading to Pier 62 at Chelsea Piers (where the series was mostly shot) was renamed "Law & Order Way" in tribute to the series.

Music and sound effects
The music for Law & Order was composed by veteran composer Mike Post and was deliberately designed to be minimal to match the abbreviated style of the series. Post wrote the theme song using electric piano, guitar, and clarinet. In addition, scene changes were accompanied by a tone generated by Post. He refers to the tone as "The Clang", while Entertainment Weekly critic Ken Tucker has referred to the sound as the "ominous chung CHUNG", actor Dann Florek (in a promo) as the "doink doink", and Richard Belzer as "the Dick Wolf Cash Register Sound".

According to writer David Allan, 2021:

"The tone moves the viewer from scene to scene, jumping forward in time with all the importance and immediacy of a judge's gavel – which is exactly what Post was aiming for when he created it. While reminiscent of a jail door slamming..."

But according to authors Susan Green and Randee Dawn:

"...it is actually an amalgamation of 'six or seven' sounds, including the sound made by 500 Japanese men walking across a hardwood floor." The sound has become so associated with the Law & Order brand that it was also carried over to other series of the franchise."

The UK-aired Channel Five versions of seasons 7–16 of Law & Order feature the song "I'm Not Driving Anymore" by Rob Dougan in the opening credits, while seasons 17–20 used the US theme.

Pilot
For the 1988 pilot, George Dzundza and Chris Noth were cast as the original detectives, Sergeant Max Greevey and Detective Mike Logan. The producers felt that Dzundza would be a perfect senior police officer as he was someone the producers felt they could see themselves riding along with in a police cruiser. Noth and Michael Madsen were candidates for the role of Logan. Madsen initially was considered the perfect choice for the role, but, in a final reading, it was felt that Madsen's acting mannerisms were repetitive, and Noth received the role instead. Rounding out the police cast, Dann Florek was cast as Captain Donald Cragen.

On the prosecutor's side, Michael Moriarty was Dick Wolf's choice to play Executive Assistant District Attorney Benjamin "Ben" Stone. The network, however, preferred James Naughton, but, in the end, Wolf's choice would prevail, and Moriarty received the role. As his A.D.A., Richard Brooks and Eriq La Salle were being considered for the role of Paul Robinette. The network favored La Salle but, once again, the producers' choice prevailed, and Brooks received the role. As their boss, Roy Thinnes was cast as District Attorney Alfred Wentworth.

Seasons 1–3
Nearly two years passed between the pilot and production of the series. The producers held options on Dzundza, Noth, Moriarty and Brooks. Each was paid holding money for the additional year and brought back. Florek also returned. Thinnes, however, was starring in Dark Shadows and declined to return. In his place, the producers tapped Steven Hill to portray District Attorney Adam Schiff, a character loosely based on real-life New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. Hill brought prestige and experience to the show, and as such, the producers allowed Hill to give insight on the direction he thought the character should go.

Seasons 4–7
By the end of season 3, NBC executives still felt the show did not have enough female characters. On the orders of then-network president Warren Littlefield, new female characters had to be added to the cast or the show would face possible cancellation on its relegated Friday nighttime slot. Wolf realized that, since there were only six characters on the show, someone had to be dismissed. He chose to dismiss Florek and Brooks from the regular roster, and later said it was the hardest two phone calls he had ever made. Though producers initially claimed the firings, especially that of Brooks, who was said not to get along with Moriarty, were for other reasons, Wolf confirmed that the firings were on the orders of Littlefield.

To replace Florek, S. Epatha Merkerson was cast as new squad leader Lieutenant Anita Van Buren. (Merkerson had previously guest starred as a mother of a gunshot victim in the season 1 episode "Mushrooms".) To replace Brooks, Jill Hennessy was cast as Assistant District Attorney Claire Kincaid. Though no initial explanation was given on the show for the departures of Florek's or Brooks's characters, they would both later return in guest appearances, with Captain Cragen having been reassigned to the Internal Affairs Bureau and A.D.A. Robinette having become a defense attorney. Florek also returned to direct a few episodes, and his character was eventually added to the cast of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.

Meanwhile, Moriarty's behavior both on and off the set became problematic for Wolf. After a public statement in which Moriarty called Attorney General Janet Reno a "psychopathic Nazi" for her efforts to censor television violence, Moriarty engaged in a verbal confrontation with Reno at a dinner in Washington, D.C. Wolf asked Moriarty to tone down his comments, and Moriarty responded by quitting the show the next week. This could have been caused by his drinking, as he admits to being "a very bad drunk" before quitting alcohol in February 2004. The final storyline for Ben Stone involves his resignation over guilt after a woman he compelled to testify against a Russian mobster was murdered by his cohorts. To replace Moriarty, Sam Waterston was Wolf's first choice for the role of Executive Assistant District Attorney John James "Jack" McCoy Jr.; Waterston's character was markedly different from Moriarty's in that Jack McCoy was conceived as more emotionally stable and having more sex appeal.

Wolf dismissed Noth when his contract expired at the end of season 5, because he felt that Lennie Briscoe and Mike Logan had become too similar to each other, and the writers were having difficulty in writing their dialogue together. Furthermore, Noth had been disgruntled with the show since the dismissals of Florek and Brooks, and remained embittered against Wolf, who he felt was not a friend to his actors. The final storyline for Detective Logan involved his banishment to work on Staten Island in a domestic violence crimes unit as punishment for punching a city council member who had orchestrated the murder of a gay colleague and had managed to get acquitted of the charges. (The made-for-television film Exiled: A Law & Order Movie, in which Noth starred, centers on Logan's attempt to get back into the department's good graces.) Noth was replaced by Benjamin Bratt as Detective Reynaldo "Rey" Curtis, who was hired in an attempt to find an actor even sexier than Noth to join the cast.

Hennessy chose not to renew her three-year contract at the end of season 6 to pursue other projects, and Claire Kincaid was written off as being killed in a drunk driving crash. She was replaced by Carey Lowell as Assistant District Attorney Jamie Ross. Lowell remained with the show until the end of season 8, when she left to spend more time with her daughter. (Jamie Ross was written off as leaving the D.A.'s office for similar reasons.) Lowell (who later returned for a couple of guest appearances) was replaced by Angie Harmon as Assistant District Attorney Abigail "Abbie" Carmichael, who was conceived as being much louder and outspoken than any of her predecessors. Harmon auditioned with 85 other women, including Vanessa Williams, for the role, and was picked after Wolf heard her Texas accent.

Seasons 8–14
Beginning in season 8 (1997), J. K. Simmons had the recurring role of Dr. Emil Skoda, a psychiatrist who worked with the Police Department. He appeared in 41 episodes until 2004. He then reappeared for three episodes in season 20.

Bratt left the series at the end of season 9, stating it was an amicable departure and he expected to eventually return for guest appearances. (He ultimately returned for the season 20 episode "Fed".) Detective Curtis was written off as leaving the force in order to take care of his wife, who was suffering from multiple sclerosis, in her final days. He was replaced by Jesse L. Martin as Detective Ed Green, who was conceived of as more of a loose cannon in the mold of Noth's Logan than Bratt's Curtis was. (Briscoe was described as being a recovering alcoholic, as Cragen had been. Green was described as being a recovering compulsive gambler.) In 2000, Steven Hill announced he was leaving the series after season 10. Hill, who was the last remaining member of the original cast, said his departure was mutual with the producers. He was replaced by Dianne Wiest as Interim District Attorney Nora Lewin, and Adam Schiff was written out off-screen as departing to work with Jewish charities and human-rights organizations in Europe.

The following year, Harmon left the show after three seasons (with Abbie Carmichael written off as being called on to serve the U.S. Attorney's office) and was replaced by Elisabeth Röhm as Assistant District Attorney Serena Southerlyn. The year after that, Wiest left the show after two seasons and was replaced by retiring U.S. Senator Fred Thompson as District Attorney Arthur Branch, whose character was conceived of as being much more right-leaning than his predecessors in the D.A.'s office, and was a direct reaction to the September 11 attacks. No mention was made on the show of what happened to Nora Lewin, though producers said her character was only supposed to be an interim D.A.

Seasons 15 & 16
After 12 years on Law & Order, Orbach announced in March 2004 that he was leaving the show at the end of season 14 for the spin-off Law & Order: Trial by Jury. Lennie Briscoe was written off as retiring from the NYPD and later taking a position as an investigator for the D.A.'s office. He was replaced at the 27th Precinct by Detective Joe Fontana, played by Dennis Farina. At the time, Orbach would not state the reason for his departure, but it was eventually revealed that he had been battling prostate cancer (for over 10 years) and that his role on Trial by Jury was designed to be less taxing on him than his role on the original series was. However, Orbach died from his cancer on December 28, 2004, and was featured in only the first two episodes of Trial by Jury. (His character was subsequently written off as having also died off-screen, though this was not revealed on the original series until the season 18 episode "Burn Card".)

Season 15 would see the departure of Röhm mid-season. Röhm's final scene on the show, in the episode "Ain't No Love", sparked controversy within the fanbase, as A.D.A. Southerlyn asked Arthur Branch if she was being fired because she was a lesbian, a fact the scripts had never even hinted at until then. Wolf said Röhm's departure was unexpected, and she exited the show in January 2005. For a few seasons, she had often argued opposing points to McCoy and Branch, and he thought she would be better as a defender rather than a prosecutor. Her replacement was Annie Parisse as Assistant District Attorney Alexandra Borgia.

Later that season, Martin departed early to film Rent. Ed Green was temporarily written off as being shot in the line of duty and being replaced during his recovery by Detective Nick Falco, played by Michael Imperioli, who had previously guest starred as a murder suspect in the season 6 episode "Atonement". Parisse left the series at the end of season 16 (with A.D.A. Borgia written off as being murdered), and Farina announced shortly afterward that he too was leaving Law & Order to pursue other projects. (Detective Fontana was written off as having retired off-screen.)

Seasons 17–20
By this point, NBC executives believed the series was beginning to show its age, as the ratings had been declining since Orbach's departure. Farina had never been popular with fans when he replaced Orbach, and it was felt that the cast just did not seem to mesh well together anymore. In an effort to revitalize the show, Wolf replaced Parisse with Alana de la Garza as Assistant District Attorney Consuela "Connie" Rubirosa, while Martin's Green was promoted to senior detective and partnered with Detective Nina Cassady, played by Milena Govich, who had worked with Wolf on the short-lived series Conviction and served as the show's first female detective of the main cast. She also briefly appeared as a bartender in the season 16 episode titled "Flaw".

However, Govich proved to be even more unpopular with fans than her predecessor was and left the show after one season with the explanation being that Detective Cassady's assignment to the precinct had been temporary and had been transferred out. She was replaced by Jeremy Sisto, who had previously guest starred as a defense attorney in the season 17 episode "The Family Hour", as Detective Cyrus Lupo. Around the same time, Thompson announced he would leave the show to seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. (No explanation was given within the show regarding Arthur Branch's off-screen departure.) Waterston's character was promoted to Interim District Attorney (later made full District Attorney in season 20) and his former position was filled in by Executive Assistant District Attorney Michael Cutter, played by Linus Roache.

Martin later announced that he would leave the show for the second and last time near the end of season 18 to pursue other endeavors, and Detective Green was written off as resigning from the force due to burnout. He was replaced by Anthony Anderson as Detective Kevin Bernard. In 2010, Merkerson announced that she would leave the show at the end of season 20, with Lieutenant Van Buren given a season-long story arc involving her battling cervical cancer. However, the cancellation of the show rendered this moot.

Season 21–present
In Deadline Hollywood, Nellie Andreeva announced the series was returning. On November 1, 2021, Jeffrey Donovan was cast as a series regular to portray a New York Police Department detective, later revealed to be named Frank Cosgrove. At that time it was also reported that Sam Waterston and Anthony Anderson, who starred in earlier seasons of the series, and additional former cast members were also in talks to return. Waterston previously stated in 2015 that he would be open to returning. Other previous cast members including S. Epatha Merkerson, Jeremy Sisto and Alana de la Garza hold starring roles on Chicago Med or FBI, with both also being part of the franchise and Wolf Entertainment series. On November 23, 2021, it was announced that Hugh Dancy had been cast as an assistant district attorney and that Anderson had signed a one-year deal to return as Detective Kevin Bernard. On December 10, 2021, it was revealed that Camryn Manheim had been cast as Lieutenant Kate Dixon, the successor to Merkerson's character, Lieutenant Anita Van Buren. Manheim portrayed minor characters in previous seasons of the series. In December 2021, Odelya Halevi was added to the cast as Assistant District Attorney Samantha Maroun. A day later, Waterston was announced to have finalized a one-year deal to return as District Attorney Jack McCoy.

On May 10, 2022, the series was renewed by NBC for a 22nd season. Later that same month, it was announced that Anderson would leave the series. On June 7, Waterston signed a new deal to return for the 22nd season, making him the longest-running cast member of the series. A week later, Mehcad Brooks joined the cast in the new season, replacing Anderson as Detective Jalen Shaw. On November 15, 2023, it was announced that Donovan would be not returning for the 23rd season. A week later, Reid Scott joined the cast for the 23rd season, replacing Donovan as Detective Vincent Riley. On February 2, 2024, it was announced that Waterston would depart from the series and Tony Goldwyn would join the cast as District Attorney Nicholas Baxter. On May 10, 2024, it was announced that Camryn Manheim would depart the series after season 23.

Plot
Law & Order episodes are structured into two parts. The initial segment involves police investigations, and the subsequent segment portrays legal and courtroom proceedings. The show focuses on the progression of each case rather than character backstories.

Police investigation
In the first half of each episode, the detectives of New York City Police Department's fictional 27th precinct investigate a violent crime such as a murder, kidnapping, or rape. The police collect evidence and interview witnesses and potential suspects. When the evidence indicates a likely suspect, the police arrest them.

Legal proceedings
In the second half of each episode, the prosecutors of the Manhattan District Attorney's office take over. The prosecutors discuss deals and plea bargains, prepare the witnesses and evidence, and represent the district's case in the trial of the accused. The prosecutors take it in turns with the defendant's defense attorney to argue the case before a jury until an outcome is decided.

"Ripped from the headlines"
Law & Order episodes are often advertised as being "ripped from the headlines", a slogan that refers to the franchise's practice of conceiving stories that are partially inspired by recent headlines. There might be a few scenes that resemble a well-known headline, while the majority of the episode goes in a different direction, or there could be one character that is based on a famous individual, but the circumstances the person encounters are largely fictional, and the rest of the plot usually diverges significantly from the actual events that may have inspired the episode. This "ripped from the headlines" theme is reflected in the opening credits sequence that evolves from newspaper halftones to high-resolution photos. Advertisements of episodes with close real-life case parallels often use the "ripped from the headlines" phrase, although a textual disclaimer, within the actual episode, emphasizes that the story and characters are fictional.

Some real-life crime victims have felt used and exploited, with one lawyer, Ravi Batra, going so far as to sue the show in 2004 for libel with regard to the season 14 episode "Floater", which portrayed a lawyer with a similar name and the distinctive features of Batra. Batra and the show later settled out of court for an unspecified amount.

Broadcast
The show premiered September 13, 1990, and ended its first run on May 24, 2010. 456 episodes were aired and produced. The show ran for twenty seasons on NBC. At this time, it was NBC's longest running crime drama, and tied for longest running primetime scripted drama with Gunsmoke. The first two seasons were broadcast Tuesdays at 10 p.m. From season 3 through 16 the show aired Wednesday at 10 p.m. For season 17 it moved to Fridays at 10 p.m. For seasons 18 and 19 the show shifted back to Wednesdays at 10 p.m. For season 20 the show was broadcast Fridays at 8 p.m., while in the spring it moved to Mondays at 10 p.m., where it broadcast its initial series finale on May 24, 2010. The revival (Season 21-present) now airs as part of NBC's 'Law & Order Thursday' lineup broadcasting Thursdays at 8 p.m. since February 24, 2022.

Syndication and streaming
Repeats of Law & Order were first broadcast weekdays on cable TV network A&E during the 1994–95 season. The A&E broadcasts were credited with drawing a new, much larger audience to the current weekly NBC Law & Order episodes. In 2002, A&E did not renew its contract to syndicate Law & Order as the price was then four times the original 1995 contract price.

As of 2023, the series is being broadcast on Sundance TV, WE tv, Ion Mystery, BBC America, Bounce TV, Paramount Network and Pop.

Since mid-2020, selected seasons of Law & Order have been available for streaming on Peacock along with Chicago Fire, Chicago P.D., Chicago Med, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and Law & Order: Criminal Intent. However, unlike some shows on Peacock such as selected seasons of SVU, which are free, access to Law & Order requires a paid Peacock subscription.

Cancellation and revival
On May 14, 2010, NBC officially canceled Law & Order, opting instead to pick up Law & Order: Los Angeles as a series and renew Law & Order: Special Victims Unit for a twelfth season. Creator Dick Wolf continued to pressure the series' producer NBCUniversal to make a deal with TNT, which held syndication rights to the show, for a twenty-first season if an acceptable license fee could be negotiated. Talks between the two started up after upfronts. However, TNT said in a statement it was not interested in picking the show up for a new season.

After TNT discussions fell through, cable network AMC also considered reviving Law & Order; however, attempts to revive it failed, and according to creator Dick Wolf, the series "moved into the history books".

In February 2015, NBC considered bringing the series back for a 10-episode limited series.

On September 28, 2021, NBC announced that a 21st season had been ordered. The new season was announced after plans for a new Law & Order spin-off, For the Defense, had fallen through during the summer. On November 1, 2021, it was announced that Jeffrey Donovan was cast as a new series regular, while Sam Waterston and Anthony Anderson would later be announced to return. On November 12, 2021, it was announced that the 21st season would premiere on February 24, 2022.

On November 23, 2021, it was announced that Hugh Dancy would join the cast for the 21st season, and it was announced Anderson would reprise his role as Detective Kevin Bernard.

On December 10, 2021, it was revealed that Camryn Manheim had been cast as Lieutenant Kate Dixon, the successor to Merkerson's character, Lieutenant Anita Van Buren. Manheim portrayed minor characters in previous seasons of the series. On December 15, 2021, Odelya Halevi was announced to be joining the cast as Assistant District Attorney Samantha Maroun. A day later, Waterston was announced to have finalized a one-year deal to return as District Attorney Jack McCoy. Law & Order officially aired its first new episode in almost 12 years on February 24, 2022.

On May 10, 2022, NBC renewed the series for a twenty-second season. One week after the twenty-first season ended, On May 26, 2022, it was confirmed that Anderson would not be returning for the twenty-second season. On June 7, 2022, it was announced that Waterston would reprise his role as McCoy for the twenty-second season. On June 13, 2022, it was reported that Mehcad Brooks was cast for the twenty-second season.

On April 10, 2023, the series was renewed for its 23rd season, which premiered on January 18, 2024.

On March 21, 2024, the series was renewed for a twenty-fourth season.

Spin-offs, crossovers, and adaptations
The longevity and success of Law & Order have spawned six American television series (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Law & Order: Trial by Jury, Law & Order: Los Angeles, Law & Order True Crime, and Law & Order: Organized Crime) as well as a television film (Exiled: A Law & Order Movie). The commercial potential of the Law & Order name outweighed initial fears that failed spin-offs (such as Trial by Jury and Los Angeles) could erode the audience of the original series. To differentiate it from other series in the franchise, Law & Order is often referred to as "The Mother Ship" by producers and critics.

Law & Order has had crossover episodes with other series in its franchise. Additionally, it crossed over with New York Undercover and Conviction; while neither series belongs to the Law & Order franchise officially, both are part of its fictional universe, and were also created by Wolf. It also had several crossover episodes with Homicide: Life on the Street. Law & Order's success has spawned two other external franchises that co-exist in the same universe (Chicago and FBI). Chicago and Law & Order were connected through Chicago Fire and Chicago P.D. with crossovers between SVU. Chicago P.D. also had crossovers with FBI.

The series has been adapted for British television as Law & Order: UK, with the setting being changed to London. In 2024, a Canadian produced series, Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent premiered on Citytv; this series is based on the Criminal Intent format and set in the city of Toronto.

There have been a few unofficial "rip-offs" of Law & Order in other countries. For example, Singapore's version of "Law & Order" was entitled Code of Law, starred Keagan Kang and Joanne Peh as Jacob Fernandez and Sabrina Wong (the counterparts to Jack McCoy and Serena Southerlyn respectively from the original Law & Order), and aired a total of five seasons of 59 episodes between September 2012 and June 2020.

Awards and honors
Law & Order has been nominated for numerous awards in the television industry over the span of its run.

Among its wins are the 1997 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series, Screen Actors Guild Awards for Outstanding Male Actor in a Drama Series for Sam Waterston in 1999 and Jerry Orbach in 2005 (awarded after his death), and numerous Edgar Awards for Best Episode in a Television Series Teleplay.

In 2002, Law & Order was ranked #24 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. The show also placed #27 on Entertainment Weekly "New TV Classics" list.

In 2013, TV Guide ranked Law & Order #14 on their list of the 60 Greatest Shows of All Time.

Home media
A box set titled Law & Order Producer's Collection was released on VHS in 2000. The 3-tape set included six episodes of the series.

Universal Studios has separately released all twenty seasons on DVD in Region 1, along with the complete series in a box set. Law & Order: The Complete Series boxed set features all 20 seasons. Each season is individually packaged (in tray-stack style), with all new cover-art (including new cover art for the seasons that have been released). The set also includes a 50-page full-color book titled "The Episode Guide". Along with episode names and synopsis, there is trivia, facts about the making of the show, liner notes, and over 80 full-color photos. In Region 2, Universal Playback has released the first seven seasons on DVD in the UK. In Region 4, Universal Pictures has released all 20 seasons on DVD in Australia and New Zealand.

The DVD box set is all NTSC even though the show switched to ATSC in season 15.

title: Law & Order


text:
Talk:Henri Matisse

Barnes Foundation paintings moved
The article shows at least two paintings attributed to the Barnes Foundation of Merion PA. The Barnes Foundation now houses the paintings permanently in Philadelphia, not Merion, since the Merion gallery closed. I saw Le bonheur de vivre and Madras Rouge there today. Should the city identification go with the painting or the city of the Foundation's headquarters?71.230.201.203 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good catch...Modernist (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Parent's Occupation Incorrect?
I'm seeing more than one source online saying that Matisse's parents were in the "grain" or "corn" business. There is no source on wiki for them owning a flower business, is it actually correct? http://www.biography.com/people/henri-matisse-9402564

I removed a phrase from the "early life" section pending review.

Phrase removed: , where his parents owned a flower business; he was their first son.

Elaur (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1
This article really needs to be expanded. How do you flag it as a stub? 137.131.130.34 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the inadequacy of this article given the importance of its subject, but it doesn't qualify for a stub tag. Rule of thumb for a stub is an article 3-10 sentences long--for more info on this see WP:STUB. To answer you question: You can always tag a stub by typing the word stub between doubled curly brackets. Ewulp 04:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The part that lists Matisse's influences strikes me as grossly inaccurate. Not the people, but the movements they're said to belong to. Poussin and Watteau had nothing to do with Post-Impressionism, or even Impressionism. Manet crossed the bridge into Impressionism but that's still a huge stretch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.28.45.55 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2
"in the Musée Franciscain-Eglise et Monastère de Cimiez, in the Cimiez neighbourhood of Nice, Alpes-Maritimes in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur Region of France."

What's that inflation ! I can also tel you it's near the arena if you come by the highway, leave the highway at "Nice-Nord" you drive to the Hôpital Pasteur you should turn on the right to take the "Avenue de la Voie Romaine" etc....

Ericd

God I was blind ! Matisse is not buried in the "in the Musée Franciscain-Eglise et Monastère de Cimiez" but in the cemetery near the "Monastère de Cimiez" like most people do. By the way Cimiez is in Nice not near Nice. Ericd

Matisse in Maroc
There is nothing here about the extremely influential time that the artist spent in Tanger. I do not feel confident enough in my artistic background to cover it, but I know that the time he spent there significantly influenced his use of light in paintings.

The Frog 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-1923 artwork
Can't we add all of his pre 1923/2 artwork, because it is in the public domain, to Wikimedia Commons and to all the relevant articles? --Rajah 03:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, his paintings are only public domain in the U.S. if they were *published* before 1923. Exhibiting a painting doesn't count as publishing it, so it's not a foregone conclusion that his paintings were published close to the time they were made.  —Cel  ithemis  20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Goldfish
That is my favorite painting by Henri Matisse

Melissa D.

Influenced by Matisse
The following line seems better left out:
 * He is also the great influence of the last living student of Picasso, Marcel Mouly.

Matisse was a huge influence on a lot of 20th century artists; Mouly is not an especially notable one compared to say De Kooning, Appel, Diebenkorn, Joan Brown, Purrmann, Carles, Bearden, Avery, Motherwell, or many others. The claim "last living student" can't be proven; did Picasso have formal students? Paloma Picasso is a designer and probably got pointers from her dad...Ewulp 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * In 2004 L'Atelier Rouge came in at No.5 of a poll of 500 art experts voting for the most influential modern art work of all time.
 * Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm
 * Might be worth mentioning in the article... --BjKa 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture Pages
I'm not going to add another line to the "partial list of works" as I think most of these stubs are quite useless clutter as they are. (except for the ones with images of course). However if someone would like to add Le Bateau (1958) – which won quite some notoriety in 1961 when it hung upside down at MoMA for several days until someone noticed – here's two useful weblinks about that story: --BjKa 10:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.rightreading.com/daybook_pages/october-2.htm#18
 * http://www.theapesheet.com/archivefive/newart2.html

Just tagged a bunch of matisse art as possibly unfree
Go to Possibly unfree images/2007 October 2 to check it out. Calliopejen1 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Armory Show 1913
The Armory Show of 1913 which marked a milestone in modern art was held in New York City, I believe, not in Chicago as stated in the text. Jim S.Jimshaw (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It started in NY, then toured 3 cities, including Chicago.  Ty  18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Avril lavigne thing
How do you get rid of it? 79.75.152.2 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of his name in other contexts
I happened to be idly flicking through the Daily Mail (yes, I know) in a pub earlier today and read this piece by the Glenda Slagg-esque Allison Pearson fulminating over why Lily Cole "agreed to be photographed [for French Playboy] in pigtails, long white schoolgirl socks and with a pink teddy parked up her Henri Matisse". In explanation, a picture of the cover is visible at the website of that other quality periodical, The Sun. I'd never encountered this usage before; has anyone else? Opera hat (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Link addition

 * Henri Matisse at State Hermitage Museum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groz (talk • contribs) 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the official site.  Ty  09:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Henri Matisse at State Hermitage Museum Unofficial - Yes, it is not the official site, but I found it useful (much more useful than official one) for myself and wanted to share. Keep your bureaucracy away from here please. Groz (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am simply making an observation of fact. We can proceed from that. The initial post could have been misread.  Ty  05:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, why do you say I am a spammer? I do not make any money from my edits, I do it just for fun. This says my edits are OK: they http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked Groz (talk)
 * Spamming is the term used on wikipedia when the only or main interest of the edits is to add a specific external link, which in your case is arthermitage.org. Whether this is for profit or "fun", it is not in the interests of the project, and you should desist. You presumably have some connection with this web site, and should leave it to non-involved editors to make the decision for its inclusion or otherwise. There does not appear to be any support for including it.  Ty  16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Christie's Auction
Shouldn't there be some mention made of the Yves Saint Laurent auction? Matisse's painting "Les coucous, tapis bleu et rose" was the highest selling item there. It sold for over $45,000,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.36.208.117 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Is "Dumb Kid" supposed to be the title to the image? 8.225.197.131 (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been . Thanks. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis
The sentence, " Where Renoir, Cézanne, Matisse, and Picasso's works dominated Leo and Gertrude Stein's collection, Sarah Stein's collection emphasized Matisse." seemed to lack point, insofar as it is saying, essentially, that Matisse, among others, dominated the Stein collection and dominated, as well, Sarah Stein's collection. What's the difference between "dominated" and "emphasized?" Hence I added "particularly" to the line.

Beyond Painting
More needs to be said about Matisse's work outside of painting, especially sculpture and cut-paper. Yes, he's primarily known as a painter, but he worked and experimented a lot with modernist trends in sculpture, and he produced numerous cut-paper works in the last years of his life. Helixer ( hábleme ) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Cut-Outs
Art Since 1945: Bibliography

Cotter, Holland. "Wisps From an Old Man’s Dreams ‘Henri Matisse: The Cut-Outs,’ a Victory Lap at MoMA." New York Times. New York Times, 9 Oct. 2014. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

Schjeldahl, Peter. "Shapes of Things." The New Yorker. October 20, 2014.
 * Another review of the recent MoMA exhibition, which may provide a contrasting view to Cotter's. Aolivex (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Elderfield, John, and Henri Matisse. The Cut-Outs of Henri Matisse. First ed. New York: George Braziller, 1978. Print.

Matisse, Henri, Henri Matisse, Karl D. Buchberg, Nicholas Cullinan, Jodi Hauptman, and Nicholas Serota. Henri Matisse: The Cut-outs. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2014. Print.

I added the section "The cut-outs" and, following the outline in my sandbox, started filling in the introduction (influence, process, origin). I will work on adding information about the key works and the recent exhibitions at Tate and MoMA. I am still not sure where to place the cut-out section in the article/what would make the most sense. Currently, it is between "The war years" and "Last years," but the the overlap makes the reading a little confusing. I am thinking I might want to delete a section (or both), and rework the information into mine, creating one cohesive section? Or just edit the sections for any repetition/rename the headings to clarify. Sjs1994 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So far the section looks good; in my opinion the cut outs coincide with the last years and the Matisse Chapel, and the museum. I am changing the headings, hopefully these will work...Modernist (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Henri Matisse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150117213857/http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/site/pages/uploaded_media/cone/matisse/index.html to http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/site/pages/uploaded_media/cone/matisse/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150117214139/http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Matisse/collection_more.htm to http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Matisse/collection_more.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150702210933/http://arsny.com/requested.html to http://arsny.com/requested.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henri Matisse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019145733/http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html to http://www.artbma.org/collection/overview/cone.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section could be improved, but I don't think that what is wrong with it is that it doesn't mention Marcel Duchamp. As far as I know—and our article does not suggest otherwise—Matisse had little or no personal relationship with Duchamp. According to WP:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Duchamp's importance (apparent mainly in the decades after Matisse'e death) is not a basic fact about Matisse; it's a fact about art history, and about Duchamp.

The source cited for Duchamp's inclusion here is a survey of British art professionals whose top five list puts Matisse behind Duchamp, Picasso, and Warhol. Surely Warhol doesn't need to be mentioned in the lead too? We have seen elsewhere that this kind of ranking in a lead section is contentious. It seems better to relegate it to the Legacy section where the context can be described.

Matisse and Picasso were self-conscious rivals as noted in the article, and this deserves mention in a well-developed lead. Our third sentence—"Matisse is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso, as one of the artists who best helped to define the revolutionary developments in the visual arts throughout the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture"—is accurate and sourced. The careful wording does not seem to me to imply that these two stood entirely alone in defining revolutionary developments in the visual arts. If there's any disagreement on this point, let's rephrase to make it unambiguous—or separate Picasso from this sentence, and mention him elsewhere. Ewulp (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Marcel Duchamp should not be mentioned in the lead because he was a very different sort of artist. We are not trying to confuse the reader and we are not trying to write nonsense. Marcel Duchamp opposed "retinal" art. That is a valid or at least well-established stance on art. But Matisse and Picasso did not ever adopt that stance. The difference between these two stances is so radical that a sentence such as "Matisse is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Marcel Duchamp, as one of the artists who best helped to define the revolutionary developments in the visual arts throughout the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture" is nonsensical. We should not foist that on the reader. It is not that it is not true, in some sense, but the lead of the Matisse article isn't the place to spring this particular incomprehensible thought on the reader. Bus stop (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Essentially I agree with the above by both Ewulp and Bus stop especially regarding the fact that Duchamp was not an important factor in 20th century painting and sculpture as were Matisse and Picasso. However regarding Dada, Found objects, the Anti-art movement, conceptual art, installation art, performance art and other 20th century innovations Duchamp along with Matisse and Picasso were the 3 major influences on 20th century art. Although as an afterthought in my opinion, Duchamp's influence has faded while the influence of Matisse and Picasso continues to grow...Modernist (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note, in the lead of the M. Duchamp article, it is written "Duchamp is commonly regarded, along with Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse, as one of the three artists who helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century, responsible for significant developments in painting and sculpture." (4 sources are given). There is no mention of Matisse in the main body of text. The quasi-same sentence used to be in the Picasso article, but is no more, following an extensive edit exchange this past January. I'm agnostic either way on keeping or removing this. But if it stays in the lead of either, it should be discussed in the main body too. Coldcreation (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm close to agnostic on it too. The article (in each of the three cases) is on an individual artist. Therefore I ask myself why we should be pontificating about which artists "helped to define the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the twentieth century"? That is not the topic of the article. Information of that nature might more strongly belong in an article on art history or art theory. Adding the three of them (Picasso, Matisse, and Duchamp) in one sentence creates a potent contradiction in terms, in my opinion, and it upends what should be a straightforward delivery in an article on one artist. This is because unlike Picasso and Matisse, Duchamp espoused a view that was strongly "anti-art". That view has become accepted and normalized over time but the contradiction remains that Duchamp for instance chose objects for Readymades based on his "indifference" towards them, and he aimed to avoid what he termed "retinal art". I could overlook the statements made by artists about their own work, except if those statements seemed on target, which they do in the case of Duchamp. Therefore the reason given by Ewulp seems correct, that "Matisse and Picasso were self-conscious rivals as noted in the article, and this deserves mention in a well-developed lead." The inclusion of Duchamp in the lead would create a logical inconsistency, in my opinion, therefore we should avoid it. Another possibility is to also omit mention of Picasso in the lead, and I don't think this would be a bad idea. This would be precisely because we are omitting mention of Duchamp. It is inarguably a fact that Duchamp has been influential, perhaps very influential. My only objection is that Duchamp has been influential in a way almost diametrically opposed to the way in which Matisse (and Picasso) has been influential. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW The interaction between Matisse and Picasso was undeniably important to both artists and to art history; while the interaction between Matisse and Duchamp was negligible at most, although the interaction between Picasso and Duchamp was clear and relevant to the direction each of them took. Both Picasso and Duchamp approached found objects in their own unique ways...Modernist (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As you say, their ways were unique. Picasso attempted to substitute found objects for things they looked like. For instance a bicycle seat and handlebars to replace aspects of a Bull's Head, and "two toy cars forming the female baboon's head, a pottery jar for its body, and an automobile spring for its tail" in Baboon and Young. The thing is that Picasso's use of found objects is not in opposition to art. Duchamp has said that the word "art" is a "discredited" term. Unlike Picasso, Duchamp presented found objects that seemed to utterly lack value as art. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Although to give Duchamp his due he managed to broaden and redefine our definition of art by essentially demonstrating that it is art because I say it is...Modernist (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore a found object can be an absolutely stunningly beautiful thing. This is aside from the use of found objects by Duchamp or Picasso. Picasso incorporated found objects into more traditional sculptures. Duchamp chose found objects for his indifference towards them; they were neither beautiful nor ugly. But the use of found objects also involves looking for beauty in unexpected places. The history of an object is often alluded to in its appearance, and that in turn is oftentimes unavoidably beautiful. I am looking, right now, at a piece of steel, folded, pitted with rust, entirely corroded along one irregular edge, of a beautiful rust color, having been run over by countless cars on a roadway, and containing a perfectly circular hole near its center—probably somehow relating to its former use, in better times. There is passion in found objects, especially those that have been kicked around. One sees these things when one tunes one's eyes to seeing them. Duchamp's point that it is art because I call it art is very relevant to the point I'm trying to make, because it is not just the artist that makes it art, but the setting in which it is seen. Placing a frame around an object of course underlines its status as art. But even more so, it is the clean, flat walls commonly seen in contemporary art galleries that accentuate the message that the viewer is encouraged to try to see this as art. In conclusion, I would say that art is a frame of mind. I know this diatribe doesn't belong here, but I doubt if any administrator will block me for it. After all, I'm only talking about art. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

To say that it is just about the artist and not where they stand in art history is exceedingly myopic. History reads as history reads and the reversal of what was or is deemed to be art is historic. To write someone out of history where they belong and make your own rationalized assessment is wrong. The reader can just click on the link and figure it out. Do we expect nothing of our readers? Tp learn is it just supposed to be that simple learning is not that simple you are altering the truth.Masterknighted (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear - Duchamp is not an important influence on 20th century painting and sculpture; although both Matisse and Picasso were. However that said, Duchamp did influence the notion of Intermedia, as well as the notion that painting is dead (although it is still alive and well). Duchamp is an important influence on 20th century art; his influence is of major import to Fluxus, Found objects, Anti-art, Conceptual art, Installation art, Performance art and various other modernist and post-modernist directions in advanced art...Modernist (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 * All I have say now as you introduced that second sentence to include Duchamp and then removed him from it is that you have committed a stupendous act of politically expendient hypocrisy glossed over with a veritable glossary, this is a battle for another day I surrender for now.Masterknighted (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Lol I'm just telling the truth...Modernist (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not the truth its an inaccurate accounting of what occurred. A sentence you composed to include Duchamp (who by the way I am not an acolyte of ) as a very fair solution to the problem now stands without him and mirrors the earlier one, so this riffs of some kind of deal that was made.  He clearly belongs in the second statement which was entered so as to explain to clarify and now just stands as if those were the only two whose radical work changed the state of art when we all know Duchamp is an important part of the story but i cannot win this argument but the way in which you switched sides is very puzzling indeed.Masterknighted (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead image
Comments from editors requested. The choice is between:

Until then the 1913 image will remain in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should use both of them. I added or rather switched the Van Vechten with the other Van Vecten that wasn't as good...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism 2?
Since the previous title was already under the name of Vandalism? I decided to name mime as a second one to disperse between the two. So, there is an apparent vandalism against this talkpage. I can't request page protect but would like to know what will the rest of community think?--Biografer (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Costumes dHenri Matisse pour le chant du rossignol (les Ballets russes, Opéra) (4550388400).jpg

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

title: Talk:Henri Matisse


text:
Belshazzar

Belshazzar (Babylonian cuneiform:    Bēl-šar-uṣur, meaning "Bel, protect the king";  Bēlšaʾṣṣar) was the son and crown prince of Nabonidus ((r. undefined – undefined)556–539 BC), the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Through his mother, he might have been a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II ((r. undefined – undefined)605–562 BC), though this is not certain and the claims to kinship with Nebuchadnezzar may have originated from royal propaganda.

Belshazzar played a pivotal role in the coup d'état that overthrew the king Labashi-Marduk ((r. undefined – undefined)556 BC) and brought Nabonidus to power in 556 BC. Since Belshazzar was the main beneficiary of the coup, through confiscating and inheriting Labashi-Marduk's estates and wealth, it is likely that he was the chief orchestrator. Through proclaiming his father as the new king, Belshazzar also made himself the first-in-line to the throne. As Nabonidus was relatively old at the time, Belshazzar could expect to become king within a few years.

Nabonidus was absent from Babylon from 553 BC to 543 or 542 BC, in self-imposed "exile" at Tayma in Arabia, for unknown reasons. For the duration of the decade-long absence of his father, Belshazzar served as regent in Babylon. Belshazzar was entrusted with many typically royal prerogatives, such as granting privileges, commanding portions of the army, and receiving offerings and oaths, though he continued to be styled as the crown prince (mār šarri, literally meaning "son of the king"), never assuming the title of king (šarru). Belshazzar also lacked many of the prerogatives of kingship, most importantly he was not allowed to preside over and officiate the Babylonian New Year's festival, which was the exclusive right of the king himself. Belshazzar's fate is not known, but is often assumed that he was killed during Cyrus the Great's Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC, presumably at the fall of the capital Babylon on 12 October 539 BC.

Belshazzar appears as a central character in the story of Belshazzar's feast in the Biblical Book of Daniel, recognized by scholars as a work of historical fiction. Daniel's Belshazzar is not malevolent (he, for instance, rewards Daniel for his interpretation of "the writing on the wall"), but in later Jewish tradition Belshazzar was presented as a tyrant who oppresses the Jewish people.

Background
Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, an elderly courtier who would rise to become the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. There are various theories concerning Nabonidus's origins, and in turn what claim he had to the throne, since it is not made clear in any contemporary sources. It is possible that Nabonidus was married to one of Nebuchadnezzar II's daughters. Not only would such a connection explain Nabonidus's rise to the throne (due to his being a member of the royal family), but it would also explain later historical traditions in which Belshazzar is described as Nebuchadnezzar's descendant. In the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible, Belshazzar is referred to as Nebuchadnezzar's (grand)son. It is alternatively possible that later traditions of Belshazzar being a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar are derived from royal propaganda, and that there was no connection to the previous ruling Chaldean dynasty.

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus names the "last great queen" of the Babylonian Empire as Nitocris, though that name (nor any other name) is not attested in contemporary Babylonian sources. Herodotus's description of Nitocris contains a wealth of legendary material that makes it difficult to determine whether he uses the name to refer to Nabonidus's wife or mother, but William H. Shea proposed in 1982 that Nitocris may tentatively be identified as the name of Nabonidus's wife and Belshazzar's mother.

The most important sources for the time of Belshazzar are the Nabonidus Chronicle, the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Verse Account of Nabonidus—which, despite its name, was commissioned by the Persian conqueror Cyrus the Great. As all of these ancient Babylonian documents were written after Babylon was conquered by the Achaemenid Empire, they are biased in favor of Cyrus, and against Nabonidus and Belshazzar.

Conspiracy and accession of Nabonidus
Belshazzar's father was proclaimed as king in May 556 BC, and by the end of June, tablets recognising Nabonidus are known from across Babylonia. Belshazzar's father came to the throne as a result of a conspiracy that saw the deposition and murder of the previous king, Labashi-Marduk. The sources suggest that while he was part of the conspiracy, Nabonidus had not intended, nor expected, to become king himself and he was hesitant to accept the nomination. After the accession of his father, Belshazzar emerges in the sources as a prominent businessman and the head of a wealthy household, a role that was typically not picked up by members of the royal family in the Neo-Babylonian period. The only other similar case is Neriglissar, though Neriglissar lacked royal blood and had not been the intended successor to the throne, and abandoned his estates upon becoming king, seemingly entrusting them to Labashi-Marduk, his crown prince, and a figure of unclear connections called Nabu-sabit-qate. Whereas Neriglissar's career as a businessman prior to becoming king can be followed through a trail of surviving business documents, Belshazzar appears to have become a prominent member of the Babylonian oligarchy overnight (Belshazzar, in contrast to his co-conspirators was notably not a member of the old Babylonian aristocracy), not being mentioned in any business documents or private transactions prior to Nabonidus becoming king.

By examining surviving documents from Belshazzar's time as crown prince, it appears that the estates of Neriglissar's family were confiscated after Labashi-Marduk's death and that they were claimed and taken over by Belshazzar. This is supported by documents describing business transactions of Belshazzar mentioning the same locations, and even the same household and servants, as similar earlier documents of Neriglissar. Since there is little change in the prominent members of Neriglissar's and Labashi-Marduk's former household under Belshazzar, it is probable that Belshazzar becoming the master of the household was met with relatively little opposition. Through the deposition of Labashi-Marduk, Belshazzar had positioned himself to become the heir of one of Babylonia's wealthiest families. Belshazzar is recorded as owning lands throughout Babylonia, for instance owning an agricultural settlement near Uruk.

As he was clearly the main beneficiary of the coup, Belshazzar was likely the chief orchestrator of the conspiracy ended in the deposition and death of Labashi-Marduk. Because he could hardly proclaim himself as king while his father was still alive, Belshazzar proclaimed Nabonidus as king. As Nabonidus was relatively old at the time, his reign could be expected to be brief and transitional, meaning that Belshazzar could expect to inherit the throne within a few years.

Regent in Babylon
Nabonidus left Babylon in May 553 BC to campaign in the west. He eventually led his forces into Arabia, conquering several cities, including the city of Tayma. Nabonidus made Tayma his provisional seat and he would stay there for about a decade, not returning to Babylon until September or October of 543 or 542 BC. October 543 BC is the return date most supported by surviving Babylonian documentation. The purpose for this prolonged stay, effectively self-exile, in Tayma are unclear and debated. During Nabonidus's absence, Belshazzar was put in charge of the administration in Babylonia. Though this period has often been dubbed a "co-regency", Belshazzar never assumed an official title. The Verse Account of Nabonidus, a biased document probably written after Nabonidus was deposed by Cyrus the Great, states that Nabonidus entrusted Belshazzar with the kingship, but there are no records of Belshazzar assuming the royal title. Though it is clear that Belshazzar during his father's absence assumed many responsibilities typically only held by the king, several prerogatives were also kept solely by Nabonidus. These include:
 * Belshazzar never assumed, and was not allowed to use, the title of king (šarru), which was reserved for Nabonidus. Throughout the period of his father's absence, even though he was the effective ruler of Babylonia, contemporary documents continue to refer to Belshazzar as the crown prince (mār šarri, literally meaning "son of the king"). The only sources that refer to Belshazzar as king, rather than crown prince, are later Greek and Jewish sources that do so erroneously. Though he is never identified as king, several contemporary Babylonian documents refer to both Nabonidus and Belshazzar as "my lord", a designation usually reserved for the king alone.
 * Belshazzar was not allowed to date documents after his own "regnal years". No documents are dated to the "reign of Belshazzar", and no documents mention both Belshazzar and Nabonidus as if there was a formal co-regency. Instead, documents from the period in which Belshazzar was regent continued to be dated after the years of Nabonidus's reign.
 * Belshazzar was not allowed to officiate and oversee the Babylonian New Year's festival, which was the duty of the king. The festival was not celebrated throughout Nabonidus's absence, as Belshazzar was not allowed to take up the king's role in the ceremonies, and only resumed after Nabonidus returned to Babylon.
 * Belshazzar is not mentioned in building inscriptions, which usually mention the king responsible. Even during the period of Nabonidus's absence, he is mentioned in building inscriptions in Babylonia as a builder and excavator as if he was actively ruling at the time, with no known references to Belshazzar. In some cases, such as a ritual performed at the tempel of Bunene in Sippar, inscriptions attribute it to Nabonidus while surviving letters prove that Belshazzar was responsible.

Though Belshazzar's authority was thus limited, he also was allowed, and assumed, certain royal responsibilities. These include:

 * Contemporary documents record rēḫātu (literally "remains", leftovers from food offerings presented to statues of deities) being sent to both Belshazzar and Nabonidus during the regency. Otherwise, rēḫātu is only recorded as having been sent to kings, receiving the remainders of cultic food having been an exclusive right of kings.
 * In Babylonia, temples usually carried out offerings to the king, such as sacrificing a specified number of sheep. Prior to and after Belshazzar's regency, surviving texts only contain references to offerings to the king (i.e. Nabonidus), but during the period of the regency there are references to both "offerings to the king" and "offerings to the son of the king".
 * In the Neo-Babylonian Empire, oaths were typically sworn by the king, and several gods, by individuals who were going to conduct various services. Though oaths for most of the regency only refer to Nabonidus, some oaths from late in the regency were sworn by "the majesty of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, and Belshazzar, his son", or even by "the majesty of Nabonidus and Belshazzar". As this phenomenon only began late in the regency period, it is not clear whether this was a prerogative that had been granted to Belshazzar, or if he inserted his name into oaths in violation of an agreement with his father.
 * There may have been a division of the Babylonian army. The Verse Account of Nabonidus states that Nabonidus campaigned in Arabia with the "army of Akkad" (possibly referring to troops of Babylonian origin) whereas Belshazzar was entrusted at home with the "army of all the lands" (possibly referring to troops of foreign origin). Babylonian chronicles refer to the crown prince being stationed at home in Babylonia with "his army".
 * Belshazzar could grant royal privileges identical to those granted by kings. One preserved document, which regards the granting of the privilege to cultivate a tract of land belonging to the Eanna temple in Uruk, is virtually identical to similar privileges issued by Nabonidus, though it is specified to have been issued by Belshazzar. As he could lease out temple land, this suggests that Belshazzar, in administrative matters, could act with full royal power. He was clearly the highest legal authority in Babylonia during Nabonidus's absence. Still, orders by Nabonidus superseded orders by Belshazzar. In one case, sacred garments that Belshazzar ordered to be granted to a temple in Uruk were held back because Nabonidus had given a contrary order before departing for Tayma. Nabonidus also sometimes sent orders to Belshazzar, which Belshazzar was forced to respect and implement.

The events that transpired in Babylonia during Belshazzar's regency are not well known, owing to a lack of surviving sources. It is clear that the New Year's festival was not celebrated, and that there was concern regarding the rising power of the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus the Great. The Babylonian chronicles describe the actions and conquests of Cyrus in detail throughout Belshazzar's regency. As Nabonidus's stay in Tayma continued, Belshazzar became acutely aware of the threat presented by the Achaemenids, as he is recorded as having expended resources at projects in Sippar and nearby defenses. In 546 BC, Cyrus the Great crossed the Tigris to invade Lydia, ostensibly a Babylonian ally, and though Belshazzar took up a defensive position with his army, perhaps expecting a sudden Persian attack against Babylonia itself, no aid was sent to the Lydians, who were swiftly conquered by Cyrus. It is possible that Belshazzar had campaigned against the Persians on Lydia's behalf a year prior, in 547 BC. The fall of Lydia in 546 BC meant that the Neo-Babylonian Empire was now effectively encircled by a stronger kingdom which had nearly unlimited resources at its disposal. It seems likely that skirmishes along the border were frequent from then until Babylon's fall.

It is possible that a noteworthy return to orthodox Babylonian religion, following early attempts by Nabonidus to exalt the moon god Sîn over the traditional Babylonian supreme deity Marduk, can be attributed to Belshazzar. It may even have been Belshazzar who convinced his father to stay away from Babylonia in the first place, fearing a confrontation with the Babylonian oligarchy and clergy over his father's religious beliefs. It is probable that Nabonidus, a reformer, and Belshazzar, apparently more religiously conservative, did not see eye to eye in religious matters. Belshazzar appears to have worked to restore Marduk's status in his father's absence. Upon Nabonidus's return to Babylon, Belshazzar was demoted from his administrative responsibilities and officials he had appointed were dismissed. Nabonidus also had certain inscriptions made during the period of the regency edited to add prayers urging Belshazzar and the people of Babylonia to accept and receive Sîn's blessing.

Fate
Regardless of any potential animosity between Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Belshazzar retained the status of crown prince and intended successor, as a handful of documents still reference the "son of the king". Otherwise his status and position after Nabonidus's return is never made clear. The sources also do not make Belshazzar's location clear, but it appears that he was stationed some distance away from Babylon, but that he also was no longer in Sippar, where he had stationed himself in 546 BC out of fear of Cyrus. One possibility, suggested by Paul-Alain Beaulieu, is that Belshazzar was put in charge of Babylonia's defense and was moving with the army along the northern and eastern border.

Belshazzar partook in Babylon's defense against the invasion by Cyrus the Great in 539 BC. After a decisive victory at the battle of Opis, the Persian army, on 12 October, led by Ugbaru, entered Babylon without a fight. The last tablet dated to Nabonidus's reign is from Uruk and is dated to 13 October, which is considered the end date of his reign. Nabonidus was captured and possibly exiled to Carmania. Belshazzar's fate is not known, since none of the sources record it. It is often assumed that Belshazzar was killed by the Persians at Babylon when the city fell, on 12 October. He may have alternatively been killed already at the battle of Opis, captured and executed, or exiled together with his father.

Portrayal in the Book of Daniel
In the Book of Daniel, Belshazzar (בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר, Bēlšaʾṣṣar) plays a significant role in the tale of Belshazzar's feast, a variation on the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness showing what happens when a king does not repent. During a feast, Babylonians eat and drink from the holy vessels of Yahweh's temple, and "king" Belshazzar sees a hand writing the words mene, mene, tekel, upharsin on a wall. Daniel interprets the writing as a judgment from Yahweh, the god of Israel, foretelling the fall of Babylon. Daniel tells Belshazzar that because he has not given honor to God, his kingdom will be given to the Medes and Persians. Belshazzar is killed that night, and Darius the Mede takes the kingdom. The broad consensus among scholars is that the Book of Daniel was compiled shortly after the Maccabean Revolt in the 160s BC. The story of Belshazzar's feast is historical fiction, and several details are not consistent with historical facts. Belshazzar is portrayed as the king of Babylon and "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, though he was actually the son of Nabonidus—one of Nebuchadnezzar's successors—and he never became king in his own right, nor did he lead the religious festivals as the king was required to do. In the story, the conqueror who inherits Babylon is Darius the Mede, but no such individual is known to history, and the invaders were actually Persians. This is typical of the "tale of court contest" in which historical accuracy is not an essential element.

Portrayal in later Jewish tradition
In the Book of Daniel, Belshazzar is not malevolent (he rewards Daniel and raises him to high office). The later authors of the Talmud and the Midrash emphasize the tyrannous oppression of his Jewish subjects, with several passages in the Prophets interpreted as referring to him and his predecessors. For example, in the passage, "As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him" (Amos ), the lion is said to represent Nebuchadnezzar, and the bear, equally ferocious if not equally courageous, is Belshazzar. The Babylonian kings are often mentioned together as forming a succession of impious and tyrannical monarchs who oppressed Israel and were therefore foredoomed to disgrace and destruction. Isaiah, "And I will rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon name and remnant and son and grandchild, saith the Lord", is applied to the trio: "Name" to Nebuchadnezzar, "remnant" to Amel-Marduk, "son" to Belshazzar, and "grandchild" Vashti (ib.). The command given to Abraham to cut in pieces three heifers as a part of the covenant established between him and his God was thus elucidated as symbolizing Babylonia, which gave rise to three kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, and Belshazzar, whose doom is prefigured by this act of "cutting to pieces" (Midrash Genesis Rabbah xliv.).

The Midrash literature enters into the details of Belshazzar's death. Thus the later tradition states that Cyrus and Darius were employed as doorkeepers of the royal palace. Belshazzar, being greatly alarmed at the mysterious handwriting on the wall, and apprehending that someone in disguise might enter the palace with murderous intent, ordered his doorkeepers to behead anyone who attempted to force an entrance that night, even though such person should claim to be the king himself. Belshazzar, overcome by sickness, left the palace unobserved during the night through a rear exit. On his return, the doorkeepers refused to admit him. In vain did he pled that he was the king. They said, "Has not the king ordered us to put to death anyone who attempts to enter the palace, though he claims to be the king himself?" Suiting the action to the word, Cyrus and Darius grasped a heavy ornament forming part of a candelabrum, and with it shattered the skull of their royal master (Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 3:4).

title: Belshazzar