text:
Talk:Trident (missile)

Relevant information
The the fact that Trident is contraversial and details of the contraversy definately deserves a mention as it does in 1000s of other wikipedia pages. Wikipidea is not a sopbox - but it is not stalins russia either.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Content should be encyclopaedic, verifiable, and cited to its source. Opinions always influence a contributors efforts, but contributors should always strive to be NPOV. Sadly, some try harder than others, and a small minority use these pages as a political pamphlet. The Trident missile page is limited to a brief description of the missile system, its origins and history. More general articles about military stragegy, nuclear weapons, the morality of nuclear weapons etc can be found elsewhere, including in Wikipedia.Brian.Burnell 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Despite the risk of an article on Weapons of Mass Distruction being overloaded by the history of mass bombing, might not a little background on the results of nuclear weapons be useful? 95.147.153.125 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The yield of missile is to be put in kg or tons, NOT megatons.

The range was stated as 12000 km, which is huge overestimation, the range is less than 8000 km, plese post real facts and not overestimations about the missile.

Ok, guys, here is the source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

here is the quote: Greater than 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 statute miles, or 7,360 km)

So, I am adding this instead of the moronic 12000 km, which is overestimation. 99.231.46.37 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

CEP
Anyone have a CEP? Stargoat 20:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

According to http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html the UGM-133 has a "90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)." I will update the page with this information. 24.19.98.210 1 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)

that is interesting quoting, the CEP of 90 meters is reached by using GPS. Here is full quote:

"The MK 6 stellar/inertial navigation system is able to receive GPS (Global Positioning System) updates, thereby increasing accuracy to that of a land-based ICBM, about 90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)."

In terms of nuclear war GPS guidance will NOT be avaliable, since satellites will be destroyed, so, either put it as 380 meters, which is REAL inertial guidance, or mention in teh chart that CEP is GPS guidance. I will correct teh article, since it is confusing for people.

Consistency Problems
The Trident missile is the only remaining US SLBM not listed by it's proper identification. The problem arises because there are two different 'Trident' missles, the Trident-I (C4) UGM-93A and the Trident-II (D5) UGM-133A. I've edited the page for a first cut at a cleaner presentation that better differentiates the two. (Note: I like the picture where it is, we should seek out a picture of the -II and put it in the same relative location.)Elde 22:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Correction to myself - the picture is actually a -II, the longer first stage and larger nose fairing, plainly visible in the enlarged view, is a dead giveaway. Elde 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aerospike
The link to the drag resistant aerospike at the front of the missile is a link to the aerospike engine so i'm taking it out. If someone could write a small piece about it would be great Cokehabit 16:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Such an article would get labeled a stub - even though it isn't. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Launching/missile water contact
Contrary to popular belief, the missile does get wet. What prevents the electronics inside the missile from water is pressurization of the missile (prelaunch) somewhat above sea pressure at the level of the tube muzzle. The bubbles you see around the missile in unerwater photographs of the launch is that excess pressure venting from inside the missile. In some high resolution photographs of the the missiles once the reach the surface, you can see plumes of spray at the base of the nose fairing - those plumes are water sheeting across the nose, and then being forced outward from the vents at the base of the nose. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This missile does not contact the water at any time while submerged to my knowledge, but it may well get the odd splash as it breaks the surgace tension. Although I doubt the odd splash of seawater is that much of a problem because the missile will likely get wet while it travels through the clouds and so will be a sealed, corrosion resistant unit. It was a major problem that the designers had to get around. The bubbles are nitrogen gas. The silo's on the submarine are filled with nitrogen gas, a very simple and inert substance (meaning it won't react with anything or damage the missile over time). When fired the nitrogen moves with the missile up and out of the water and just disperses into the atmosphere as the missiles first stage rocket motor fires. I believe it is the strong positive buoyancy which brings the nitrogen and missile up the surface. Rather like when you open a cola sized bottle of air underwater in the bath for example. Hope this helps. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Elde is right, it can clearly be seen in the image montage that the bubbles are issuing from the rocket itself, and that the nose is in direct contact with the water at launch. Even super-cavitating torpedoes touch the water at some points, and those are designed to have minimum possible contact with water as their only goal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.136.240 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Use
Have Trident missiles (of any model) been used in active conflict, and if so, which ones? I feel this could be useful information to include in the article. --Black Butterfly 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You might have heard if the US or UK had nuked another country lately! No, they haven't. And there are as yet no conventional Trident missiles. The UK has a declared policy of sub-strategic use, where they might retaliate against a country which used chemical weapons on its troops for example using a single missile with only one warhead. Mark83 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

TridentSubLaunch.gif
This image is over six megabytes in size. That's an awful lot of bandwidth for something that may look interesting but doesn't nessecarily add much to the article. Sargant talk 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The image, TridentSubLaunch.gif was jerky and did not look good.  I've removed it.  -  Crosbiesmith 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blair's preference
The BBC source quoted did not say what the article purported it said. Words are important, and it is important that they are quoted accurately. Otherwise the words can be twisted to mean something different to what the speaker intended. The actual quote was as follows: Note that Blair himself did not utter these words. They are the words of an un-named journalist, who is merely offering his opinion as to what Blair's thoughts were. It is important to get these things right, otherwise contributors are merely promoting a POV, and on hotly contested current affairs such as this one is, expressing a POV is tantamount to promoting a partisan political viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopaedia. Brian.Burnell 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "TB is  thought  to favour replacing Trident but has promised a full debate before a decision is made."
 * I'm not aware of the context of the above comment, however did Gordon Brown not cause a stir about 6 months ago by saying Trident would be replaced? And he could be the PM making the decision. Mark83 20:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 * That's what the source is quoted as saying at . The same source as quoted in the article. True, Gordon Brown was reported to have said something along those lines, and he might well be the next PM faced with the decision. I believe though, that such thoughts and utterances by a politician on the hustings for a new job, need to be taken with a large pinch of salt. We shall see if he becomes PM. Until then, perhaps the best place for his musings is the Gordon Brown biog page. Otherwise an article such as this one can be overwhelmed by the musings of all other contenders for the job. But that's very POV. My belief - without any hard evidence to support it yet, is that the MoD will want to remain in step with the US, for the same reasons as advanced in favour of adopting Trident D5 originally. Then, in a Cold War context, it could be summarised as this. "If the Soviets see a Trident missile rising from the Norwegian Sea they will have no way of knowing whether it is a British or American missile. And that uncertainty is also well understood in the US, who are thus bound into an alliance more securely, in the knowledge that a British strike could bring retaliation down on Washington and a hundred American cities." That was the argument made and lost by the Navy against Chevaline, but advanced again and won when Trident D5 was adopted. In today's changed world I fully expect the MoD to adopt a similar position, and opt for a Service Life Extension Program similar to the US D5LE program, because its possibly the cheapest option, but also because issues about binding the US into the NATO alliance are as fragile as ever they were during the Cold War, and US isolationism a growing force in the face of Old Europe's intransigence (as the Americans see it). And the growing wealth, self-confidence and self-assertion of the New Russia won't have escaped the notice of the MoD. Especially after the events of last week in London. But this is wandering a long way from an article on a missile system. Brian.Burnell 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Legality of Trident
I've just added some information about the (il)legallity of Trident to the Trident Ploughshares article. I'd like to add a link to this information to this article, with wording along the lines of "Trident has been argued to be illegal under various points of international law, for more info see..." but thought I should air the idea here first. I know I should just Be Bold but there's not point in being bold and starting an edit war! --Jim (Talk) 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Please don't write it as "for more info see.." It looks like endorsement. A better way is how its handled at British replacement of the Trident system, i.e. outlining the legality (or otherwise) of nuclear weapons and then providing a citation:

 * Greenpeace and other groups claim that new development of nuclear weapons would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, specifically Article 6: "'Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.'"

 * It would also be beneficial to cite the "various points" and not just leave it so vague. Mark83 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Cheers Mark. I guess if I follow what you said you wouldn't have any objections to my adding a small section on the legality of Trident under international law? I'm being deliberately careful here for reasons stated above. Does anyone else have any objections to my adding the section? --Jim (Talk) 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Go for it! --Guinnog 21:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To second the point from Mark83, don't write 'Trident has been argued to be illegal', always write 'Trident has been argued to be illegal by particular group or person '. Otherwise it will be necessary to add the Template:Who tag - Crosbiesmith 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks - I'll refrain from adding any information for a little while longer, as I still feel that some might see the edit as controversial. For the record the "who" in this case is the World Court. --Jim (Talk) 12:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see why you should wait - go for it. Anybody who has a problem with it will either contact you or make changes, that's how it works. Please note on Wikipedia World Court is a disambiguation page, I think the link you would need is International Court of Justice? Mark83 17:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a thought though. How is legality or illegality of nuclear weapons specific to this article in particular? It is discussed fully at International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. i.e. Trident missiles are a major component of the whole system, but it is pointless duplication to have the discussion at every relevant page, e.g. Ohio class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Typhoon class submarine, Le Triomphant class submarine, AGM-129 ACM, Ground Launched Cruise Missile, R-36 etc. etc. Might I suggest the following section format:

Legality
. Summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary.

 * Because of Mark's point above, I thought it might be a good idea to have a template which contained a brief summary of the ICJ opinion which could be added to each article where it was thought appropriate. Then rather than subsequent edits to these articles producing various forks of the "Legality" section, all the edits could be done to the template. Also, this would allow for caveats relevant to only some nuclear weapons (e.g., Mark's point regarding proportionality and Trident) to the ICJ opinion to be added below the template's insertion in the respective article.

 * The template text looks like this:

 * And you can see it at work here: User:James Kemp/Trident missile

 * Does this seem like a good solution? --Jim (Talk) 22:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of template
Having seen the template in use I've come to the following conclusion. I think a better discussion of illegality or otherwise would be good at nuclear weapon. My logic -- bare with me -- is that there are many articles on Wikipedia about cars. However only car describes the very general workings, practicalities and other issues in general. Whereas Ford Mondeo dispenses with generality and focuses on the specific workings, functions and attributes of that product. i.e. The sub-article does not discuss the general effect cars have had on society. Likewise I don't think every single nuclear weapon subarticle (of which there are many) should discuss the complex international legal arguments. Mark83 22:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The template is way over the top.  I think this whole issue need only be raised if a particular notable person has prominently raised this issue with regards particularly to Trident.  In this case, the required text would be something along the lines of 'Person X has, in an article for the Guardian [or whatever], first raised the point in 1987 [or whenever] that Trident is in violation of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.  The British Government dispute this interpretation [presumably].  The current boilerplate, as I say, is way over the top.  As Mark says, if we have it on this nuclear weapons article, we need have it on every nuclear weapons article.  It would be like those warnings on cigarette packs: repetitive and annoying.  - Crosbiesmith 22:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, nothing in this template is Trident-specific. Information on the legality of Trident should be Trident-specific.  As I say above, a specific quote from a notable person should suffice. - Crosbiesmith 22:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the template with a brief mention of Trident Ploughshares. My change is my take on how any reference to legality should be handled. However, having made the change, it still looks wrong to me. As Mark83 says, there is no need to mention the social benefits and environmental drawbacks of the internal combustion engine in every single article about specific types of cars. Likewise, a section on 'the value of nuclear deterrence' would be tiresome, applied to every nuclear weapons article. My further proposal is to remove any reference to illegality or opposition altogether. Anyone sufficienly interested can read Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom or nuclear weapons to get this information. A British campaign against this predominantly American weapons system is of marginal relevance to this article. - Crosbiesmith 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * N.B., for handy reference, the template page is here: Template:NuclearLegality - Crosbiesmith 00:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi Crosbiesmith: Mark and I had continued the debate about this at my Talk Page, where we've already covered some of the ground you mention here. Maybe you'd like to have a look at it? We've basically come to the conclusion that each nuclear weapon article should contain something which directs the reader to legal information as per the ICJ advisory opinion; I'm just working out how this should be included so it's not as imposing as the previous template.

 * We've also covered the problem you mention regarding the lack of Trident-specific legal issues, with the use of a special sectstub template. There has been quite a bit of legal debate in the UK about Trident, and I'm aiming to put a summary of this on the Trident article. I guess I should point out that renaming the section "UK opposition" kind of misses the point; there would be a need, I think, to include both an "opposition" section and a "legality" section, because the two are very seperate. Most oppositions to Trident are moral rather than legal; this is even the case for Trident Ploughshares, who merely use legal language to frame their moral argument. --Jim (Talk) 12:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Further to that though, I have raised a concern about duplication on every sub-article. I first mentioned this in my car/Ford Mondeo analogy. Is a "See also" solution available here? Mark83 22:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well no, given the focus on Trident in the UK, perhaps a dedicated section here and a "See also" section on the other nuclear weapons pages. Mark83 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Legality 2
Hi again guys: I've been doing a bit of work on this again, and I've come up with some information which I think is both a suitable and necessary addition to the article. It seems that a couple of lawyers at Cherie Blair's lawfirm applied the 1996 ICJ Opinion directly to Trident, and found that its use would breach customary international law. Since this is completely specific to Trident, does anyone have any problems with me adding it? --Jim (Talk) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've left this a few days and noone's commented, so I'm going to go ahead and add it. Let me know what you think --Jim (Talk) 20:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think these these comments are non-notable and have been given exaggerated prominence. Also, you linked the wrong Rabinder Singh.  -  Crosbiesmith 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realised it was the wrong Singh pretty quickly, and changed it: in response to your edit summary, Singh's biog can be found at . For the record (and in case anyone wants to sort out those red links), Christine Chinkin's biog is at.
 * But more to the point, I would be very interested to hear why you think the Legality section is non-notable. Positioning it in the article was tricky, so you might be able to improve that to make it less prominent: I didn't want to put it at the bottom, after the "conventional trident" section, as "conventional trident" would not be illegal. --Jim (Talk) 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't want to knock the work you've done on the legality (or not) of nuclear weapons, but is it the best thing to have taking up a large section of an article on a very particular system (eg you don't have this on say the Dongfeng missile article). Maybe legality is best tackled from the entrance point of nuclear weapons or the WMD infoboxes. Your delving really deep into law, from what can be perceived as a POV, on an article about a rocket (admittedly its the name we over here use to refer to our whole deterrent). I'm really tempted to delete the lot from the trident page. As Jim says, a conventional trident isn't a problem, its the warhead your talking about (ie W86, W88, UK equivalent, etc)
 * IMHO the judgement, if enforceable or relevant (most IR people look at the NPT as the green light to the P5 - depending on how high you place/value international law - its very contentious, divisive and POV and to some IR people just plain irrelevant), i referring to mutual assured destruction, massive retaliation and maybe minimal retaliation. its very useless for statecraft, it doesn't say if the whole Warsaw pact invades Germany NATO couldn't 1st strike back, it doesn't say what is to far. is escalation to a Soviet assault via tac nukes, building up to an ICBM/SLBM intercity exchange OK, but nuking Moscow straight out illegal ???
 * sorry to go on, it's my area of IR --Pickle 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have tried to point out using my Ford Mondeo analogy (under the heading "Implementation of template" above) I agree that every single nuclear weapon article shouldn't have a large discussion about legality/illegality. Put perhaps we could turn the discussion as to where it should be. I suggested in nuclear weapon as you did Pickle. Any other thoughts? Mark83 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I agree that it's odd that legality is being discussed on the articles about the nuclear weapons of stable, democratic states but not on those of authoritarian, communist states. Mark83 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I completely take your point that the legality of nuclear weapons should not per se be discussed only on certain nuclear weapons. But, when legal opinions exist which relate specifically to certain nuclear weapons - and when these legal opinions are handed down by lawyers, and not just interpretations advocated by activists - I do think that they have a place in the specific article. If I had the time I would add sections to all nuclear weapon articles, but I don't; international law is a big old subject and I can only do what I can. Since there are two legal opinions relating to Trident (that I've managed to find) I think a specific note of the system's legality is very notable and should be included. With regards to the comment that "this article is about a missile system and it's the warhead that's illegal", it seems to me that this misses the point: Trident has only ever been armed with nuclear warheads, and the W86/88 are (as far as I know - please correct me if I'm wrong) only ever fitted to Trident. This is valid information, notable, and specific only to Trident. Where else should I put it? I've added it the article on the ICJ opinion only because I thought a section on "international reaction" was important.

 * Pickle: re: your comments on what international law says a state may or may not do, it's pretty cut and dry: the Lotus principle states that a state can do what it wants, as long as its not explicitly prohibited.

 * And, finally, in reference to the nature of international law: it lacks a police force, and therefore an incentive for world leaders to comply with it. However, it does remain binding on the international community (note that the ICJ opinion was just that, only an opinion; the law was extant before 1996 and all the ICJ are saying is "this is what the law will say if you launch a nuclear weapon". International law would be enforced once the weapons were used, with a trial of the appropriate war criminals at the International Criminal Court. --Jim (Talk) 09:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * firstly and foremost trident is missile, while in popular context, particularly in the UK, it refers to the whole nuclear deterrent system it is actually *just* a missile. while yes, there is no "conventional" trident, in the context of all other ICBM/SLBM articles this section is plain irrelevant. perhaps there needs to be an intro sating how "trident" to the UK reader, refers to the current UK nuclear deterrent of warhead, plus missile, plus vanguard class SSBN, etc. The international law section really should be moved to legality section of Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. Of the top of my head i can't think of the name for the current UK warhead for the D5 missile, but thats where *maybe* legality could also be discussed.

 * What I'm also getting at is that the whole idea/concept of International Law is very controversial, Int Law is very different form domestic law, as there lacks any overarching International authority to enforce it, by highlighting the judgement you are perhaps conferring a lot of authority/credence upon a very controversial/irrelevant decision that could arguable betray POV. Even if something is explicitly prohibited eg invading Iraq, its up to someone else/the system to enforce any action (which hasn't happened). Int Law is very tenuous at best and i'ld be very cautious citing / jumping up and down say Int Law says nukes are illegal.

 * The deeper point i was getting at was, that the judgement is to me at least, unclear as to when using them is illegal. Western defence for the last 50 years has been based upon massive retaliation to Soviet invasion - is this thus illegal? The judgement makes the vital caveat that if the existence of the state is threatened then is OK, thus is the typical example of a soviet invasion of western Europe OK, to resist with nuclear weapons??? Is responding to an initial nuclear assault with nuclear weapons OK ??? The NPT by acknowledging the 5 NWS, thus infers the NWS can have nuclear weapons.....

 * Look the area is so vague and contentious, riddled with POV that it realy should be abandoned from this article.

 * Pickle 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * You make some interesting points, although I think they are themselves contentious. I will reply fully tomorrow evening (Wednesday evening GMT). --Jim (Talk) 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Quickly - i don't want to knock in anyway you're diligent work on this. IMHO the article on the judgement is very thorough, and anyone interested in the legality of anyone nuclear weapons will find their way their. What I'm against is including this in *every* article anything to do with nukes, particularly this one. As above, its better tackled / angled from elsewhere - that's not to say a single sentence or a listing in the the "see also" would be OK. It's just in its current form legality occupies a significant proportion of the article. Pickle 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * In response to Pickle: If you want me to answer your points above (as promised) I will, but I feel the debate has moved on a bit and so I'd rather spend my time replying to your second set of points. I agree that a summary on the ICJ opinion would look a bit out of place if included ad hoc in every article on a specific nuclear weapon. I do think that such a summary should be included, but concede that this should only be done when the ICJ decision has been applied specifically to the nuclear weapon under consideration. This is the case with Trident: two separate legal opinions have stated that Trident/the Trident replacement would be illegal, and breach the NNPT. This is not just a matter of a lawyer writing on a piece of paper "well, the ICJ said all nukes are illegal so therefore Trident is illegal"; it's a long-winded process, as can be seen from the actual legal opinions. Also, see below. --Jim (Talk) 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * This isn't just another missile system that happens to share the legal problems of other nuclear weapons, tho. Trident's legality has been a major issue in the UK - googling faslane (site of the Trident system) gives six of the top ten matches as relating to protest against it, opposition to it, etc. Not putting this in the article is a mistake, IMO. I would therefore suggest the creation of a "controversy" section covering both opposition (domestic and international?) and legal issues. I do agree however that this shouldn't use too much space - maybe a couple of paragraphs for each, with "see also"-s and suchlike.

 * As this seems to be a contentious issue I will refrain from putting this in for the moment; if nobody blocks it by tomorrow 5pm GMT I will edit it as described above. --Black Butterfly 14:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The question of legality pertains to the British nuclear deterrent as whole. This article is about the submarine launched missile which is a component of that system.  Discussions of legality belong at Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom.
 * Perhaps there is a need for a new article 'Trident (UK nuclear program)'. This would cover the history of the program, opposition, legal issues, cost, and possible replacement.
 * For the time being, people who wish to read about the wider context of the British Trident program can do so at 'Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom'. If there is pertinent information about  legality it should go there.  If the information is there, it does not need to go here.  I don't believe people with an interest in the opinions of Rabinder Singh QC wish to wade through the technical specs of a submarine launched missile.  There is a sufficient material for an article on the purely technical and historical aspects of this missile.  This is that article.  Likewise, there is sufficent material for an article on the social, moral and legal aspects of the British Trident program.  This is not that article. - Crosbiesmith 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To respond more specifically to Black Butterfly's proposal, I reject the idea of a 'Controversy' section. There is no controversy.  No one here is disputing Rabinder Singh's opinions.  The only dispute is with regards to the article itself, namely, is this material relevant to this particular article.  Absolutely no-one so far has claimed that the Trident weapons program is legal under international law.  A controversy would imply there are two opposing sides to the debate.  Judging by the discussion here, there are people here who believe the weapons are illegal, and people who simply don't care.  -  Crosbiesmith 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I created British Trident system. Everyone, do your best! - Crosbiesmith 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Crosbiesmith: I refer you to Black Butterfly's statement, something along the lines of it being necessary for Trident to be considered in its social/legal/political contexts. FTR, the question of legality refers to all Trident nuclear weapons. The ICJ opinion, and the two subsequent opinions specific to Trident, are based on international law and refer to the US and the UK Trident systems. The stuff on the Trident replacement and the NPT explicitly refers to only the UK upgrade, but as the US is upgrading too it's not difficult to apply it to the US. Your point about a new article on Trident as a UK missile system is a little obtuse: people who want information about Trident will come here. We could start a new article about the missile system (which is not just a UK operation), which could contain all the information on this page, but that kind of misses the point. Two final points: firstly, there is a controversy here, if only because the US and UK governments are flouting international law and are refusing to respond to their citizens when those citizens demand an explanation. Secondly, it seems to me that your argument above is incredibly POV, and you don't make much of an effort to back up the points you make; it just seems to be a list of opinions. --Jim (Talk) 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I have no problem with see also/main links etc. to the relevant articles, with a summary in this article. Mark83 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm going to leave it to Black Butterfly to make the edits, as I think it is better for more than one person to edit article. Based on what has been said, I think the following should be mentioned: (1) Opposition from various activist groups on moral and legal grounds; (2 - perhaps) Opposition from the same, and from other groups (e.g., doctors) under medical grounds; (3) One or two line summary of the ICJ opinion; (4) One line on each of the two legal opinions that specifically addressed Trident. --Jim (Talk) 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Legality section removed.
I removed the section about the illegality of the system, since it was completely irrelevant to the topic and was quite obviously political advocacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.104.69 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Not irrelevant and please don't make improper suggestions about other editor's motives. Thanks Mark83 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removing Trident from its social/political/legal context serves no real purpose. --Black Butterfly 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not relevant specifically to the Trident missile. If you want to discuss the legality of using nuclear weapons in war, this entry should be put under the main page for nuclear weapons and NOT specific underlying pages such as this page that's specifically for the Trident missile. Also, the wording of that section instantly tipped me off that it was put there by a leftist activist. Only after you brought up the part about the author's motives did I look at who the author is. After reading up on it, I can say with 100% certainty that he's a leftist activist. The section will be removed again. Wikipedia is a place to get factual information; it's not there for political activists to advocate their views. The user who put that entry there, Jim, is admittedly a left-leaning anti-war activist. He even has the WikiProject Anti-war page listed as a bookmark, but ironically, if you go to that page, it says, "We do not support, and actively condemn, the promotion of an anti-war POV (or any other POV) in Wikipedia articles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.104.69 (talk • contribs)
 * When you have groups such as "Trident Ploughshares" it's a little difficult to say it's not relevant specifically to the Trident missile. Now you could say that group is anti-nuclear and at this moment in time are just anti-whatever particular nuclear system the UK has at the time. But still - I find it hard to support the statement "it's not relevant specifically to the Trident missile."
 * I haven't browsed enough of Jim's contributions to speak authoritatively, however from what I have seen the edits have been more fact than POV (if any) and he has also sought discussion and consensus on this talk page. In my experience not the characteristics of someone who is POV-pushing. Regards Mark83 10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am anti-Trident and, more broadly speaking, anti-war. However, I would argue that since many people have strong views on these subjects there would be very few people editing the articles if a supposed "conflict of interests" were cited as a reason for these people (of which I am one) not to edit war or nuclear-weapon articles. Moreover, it is my anti-Trident feelings that have lead me to research the legal aspect so thoroughly. I guess I should add that I am not affiliated to any anti-nuclear or anti-war group such as CND or Trident Ploughshares, I just agree with many things they say. --Jim (Talk) 22:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that your anti-Trident feelings have lead you to research the legal aspect, but that doesn't mean that a section devoted to it belongs in the article. The fact that some people have strong anti-ware feelings doesn't change that fact. I'm not opposed to you writing or editing articles about weapons, but when you begin to inject your personal beliefs into the article by devoting sections of those articles to anti-war causes, you've crossed the line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.104.69 (talk • contribs)
 * No sorry, exactly what is crossing the line? As I have explained earlier on this talk page and to Jim on his talk page I am pro-nuclear. However as yet I have not seen him "cross the line" regarding legality. Given the unjustified attacks (as I see it) on Jim, I think he has more authority to speak than those who both attack his edits and revert them without looking for consensus or explaining their edits. Mark83 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the first issue here is whether an article on a specifically nuclear weapon should include information on that weapon's social (i.e., economic, political, or in this case legal) context. I think that it should. A nuclear weapon (or any weapon) is not just a collection of metal, warheads, detonators, rocket fuel etc.; it is an object which has a profound impact on people's lives and therefore deserves to be considered in the context of those lives. I agree that a general discussion of the social context of nuclear weapons should not be included in every article about a specific nuclear weapon. If you go back through the history of the article you will see that I did include a general summary of the ICJ opinion in December, and it was deleted after some debate. However, what I have included here is very specific to Trident, so I think it should stand.
 * The second issue would then be what form this information should take. Is the way it is currently written too ostentatious? Perhaps the use of the cquotes makes it stand out too much? I have discussed this earlier on this talk page, and have said I won't edit it to make it less ostentatious, essentially because I feel the section would be better if it were edited by more than one person. I think the social context does deserve its own section, essentially to mark it off from the technical information in the rest of the article. Maybe that section should also contain some history of the Trident missile, both because its notable information and also (as a side-effect) because this would ensure the points on legality don't stand out so much? --Jim (Talk) 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section added
As discussed above, I have added a section on controversy related to Trident. most of the information there relates specifically to Trident's state in the British political scene rather than to nuclear weapons more generally, which is why I felt it would be useful to have in the article. More general views on nuclear weapons, legally, morally and politically, is dealt with in other articles. I have tried to keep POV to a minimum but I'm only human, any help would be good. However, I would ask that the section not be removed. As stated above, the information given here is Trident-specific rather than being related to nuclear weapons more generally, and as such, it belongs here. The section on its role in Scottish politics is essentially a stub and could use expansion (unless information is such as it requires its own article; not likely for the time being). --Black Butterfly 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Good job! I feel that this really adds to the article, and provides a better context for my international law additions. I think it might upset a few people though!!
 * A couple of points - I will add these myself as soon as a few other people have seen the section as it now stands - (1) I really don't like "Controversy" as a header. It seems to be used in a lot of WP articles and really makes my skin crawl. Maybe "Opposition" would be better? Or there's certainly something even better still. (2) I think the section would be improved by including the reasons why people object to Trident: legal, moral, on health grounds, expense, etc. If these reasons were outlined quickly and referenced then people might be a bit less likely to remove the section in one fell swoop. --Jim (Talk) 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree on the name of the section - will change it to Opposition. And cheers for expanding on the reasons for objection from Scottish groups. Will add a quote from the faslane 365 group also. --Black Butterfly 16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

move
1) OK I've been bold and moved the huge chunk that is causing all the fuss over to the new British Trident system.

IMHO its best that we explain the problems, legality, etc et all over on that page. legality of the US deterrent which doesn't seam to be as big an issue should occur at "us and nuclear weapons" page

2) back to the debate - IMHO on legality, the NPT, by being ratified by every state on the planet confers a) that the NNWS accept the NWS's nuclear status (ie they have the bombs, bomb are bad, but they have them) b) the other NWS accept the other NWS's possession, c) thus you leave Israel, India and Pakistan (and now DPRK) who everyone accept have nukes after the 1967 cutoff and haven't got a clue how to deal with this fact. I'm not disputing that various legal bods have made numerous legal opinions and judgements, but the weight of the NPT to me, and presumably the states involved seams to practically dismiss/ignore this judgement (my humble opinion only, i respect your right to disagree).

3) FFS 68.45.104.69 sign in so one or the other we can all agree/disagree with you in a civilised manner ;)
 * I've signed in now- TwinTurboZ 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Who stated the range at 12000 km, this is terribly false, the range is less than 8000 km, please do not spoin wikipedia with such corrections.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm

Also, where is info on that 29000 km/h speed of warheads? at what stage?

Seems VERY doubtful that the speed is indeed 29000 km/h, it is more likely to be 15-19000 km/h.

Senate Gives Conventional Trident the Ax...
Just read that the US Senate cut funding for conventionally-tipped Trident missiles, fearing that the launching of one would be mistakenly identified as a genuine nuclear strike, and thus prompting a nuclear response. This should be added to the article. Here is the source-article Senate Panel Eliminates Trident Conversion Funding. -Geoffrey C Vargo 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

 * They do that EVERY year.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/14/sac-d-rejects-f136-dough/ Eliminates funding for Conventional Trident Modification efforts

 * Hcobb (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Anything new on this topic? LP-mn (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

New Article: How the US forgot how to make Trident missiles
You folks might want to check this out: --Radical Mallard 3/12/09 7 PM EST
 * How the US forgot how to make Trident missiles

Article name
Pardon my possible ignorance, but why is this article called Trident (missile) and not Trident missile? The whole article appears to refer to the trident missile and doesn't refer to it simply as "Trident". GDallimore (Talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Round 2 for why, but don't expect clear reasoning there! Basically, it is because the missile's name is "Trident", not "Trident missile". I'd prefer to see at at some kind of name with "program" or the like in the title, as this page is more about the program itself, while there are separate pages on the missiles. - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

UK R&D contribution
There seems to be an inconsistency:

Vanguard_class_submarine Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 5% research and development contribution.

Trident_(missile) Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 10% research and development contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.12.176 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 * 10% ? Where did your figure come from? Because it's untrue.
 * The actual figure was a 5% R&D contribution added to the cost of missiles and associated equipment and services purchased from the US. See (1). That didn't include the submarines or the other costs of the programme. 70% of total costs were spent in the UK. See (2). The most expensive parts of the programme were shipbuilding, construction in the UK and warhead procurement. See (3).The 5% R&D contribution was exactly as for Polaris because Trident was purchased under a barely modified Polaris Sales Agreement, a copy of which was published. See (4) The R&D contribution was therefore based on the cost of purchases estimated by the White House (5) at 2½ billion US dollars (£1.6 billion) - the MoD at that time were using a conversion rate of $2.36 = £1). The R&D contribution was therefore estimated at under £53 million at 1980 prices.

 * (1)    Letter from US Sec of Defense Harold Brown to Francis Pym - UK Defence Minister dated 14 July 1980 published in TNA DEFE 24/2125
 * "In particular, the United Kingdom will pay a contribution to research and development costs for the Trident I (C4) system in accordance with the formula set forth in the Polaris Sales Agreement, that is to say, a surcharge of 5% on the cost of the missiles and equipment purchased under the agreement."
 * (2)    Published in TNA 24/2125 E38 p25, 84, and a White Paper Cmnd:7979.
 * (3)    As at (2) E38 p1-28.
 * (4)    White Paper Cmnd: 7979.
 * (5)    White House Press briefing published verbatim in TNA 24/2125 E55 p1-9
 * "'Finally, let me just say that the Trident sale will be financially beneficial to the United States. We estimate that it will be worth about 2½ billion dollars, in 1980 dollars, for the United States. This will include a 5% surcharge to recover already sunk R&D costs on our part ... .''." George.Hutchinson (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/vanguard/vanguard6.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear warheads - US and British
Could someone add something about this topic? Notreallydavid (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Trident (missile). 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/20090227182711/http://www.lockheedmartin.com:80/news/press_releases/2002/NavyAwardsLockheedMartin248MillionC.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2002/NavyAwardsLockheedMartin248MillionC.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 19:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lacking Infobox Weapon
Unlike, say, the LGM-30 Minuteman page, the Trident page lacks the Infobox Weapon. Should this infobox be added? Sire TRM (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 * Also unlike the Minuteman article, the Trident has two daughter articles that do have infoboxes: UGM-96 Trident I, and UGM-133 Trident II. This article is primarily an overview of the USN Trident program. As such, I wouldn't recommend adding an infobox here. - BilCat (talk)

June 2016 test 'failure'
UK Defence Journal - George Allison - How serious was the Trident missile test failure?, 22 January 2017.    ←   ZScarpia  11:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 * While one major test failure might be considered unfortunate - do not TWO failures look like carelessness?
 * Given the latest BBC news report, might not this article have a section on misfires and failures? 95.147.153.125 (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Why no mention of cost?
One of the most significant issues with the war economy is cost. These missile programs have diverted trillions of dollars away from health care, education, and peace making. Why are we not listing the cost of all these missiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to write a properly sourced section on the topic, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. Kylesenior (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

 * If this article is to be more than a dodgy document, aimed at sexing up the case for 'British' WMDs, should it not include the full cost of Trident? 95.147.153.125 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Draper notable?
https://www.draper.com/explore-solutions/trident-ii-mark-6-mod-1-guidance-system

Hcobb (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"Super-fuze"
The article states that "In 2009, the United States upgraded the D5 missiles with an arming, fuzing and firing (AF&F) system called the "super-fuze"". My understanding from reading the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article cited is that the new fuzing system is integrated into the warhead, not the missile. (The BAS article seems to match the "three times" increase in effectiveness figure given in the other cite, if you take the BAS estimate of converting a 50% kill probability into a 85-90% kill probability as an example, as you would have to send three warheads of the old type to a single target to get similar lethality against that target as achieived with the new one.)

This is an important distinction, because if this is the case it will increase the power of the U.S. Trident fleet, but not the British Trident fleet, which is fitted with British warheads. I've amended the article to reflect this. Please let me know if I'm incorrect. Whether or not the UK warheads have a similar capability is I believe unknown, but the UK has announced it will begin a replacement of British warheads to match modern American capabilities, which would presumably include giving them this capability. — The Anome (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Trident (missile)


text:
Easley (name)

Easley is both a surname and a given name. Notable people with the name include:

Surname:
 * Adelaide Easley (1902–1974), American physicist with General Electric
 * Annie Easley (1933–2011), American computer scientist, mathematician and rocket scientist
 * Charles Easley, Justice, Mississippi Supreme Court
 * Damion Easley (born 1969), baseball player
 * David Easley, Chair of the Economics department at Cornell University
 * Ed Easley (born 1985), American baseball player
 * Jeff Easley (born 1954), graphic artist, works in Dungeons and Dragons books
 * Kenny Easley (born 1959), American football player
 * Michael Easley (disambiguation), multiple people
 * Mike Easley (born 1950), politician
 * Nick Easley (born 1997), American football player
 * Stephen Easley (1952–2013), American businessman and politician
 * Walt Easley (1957–2013), American football player

Given name:
 * Easley Blackwood Sr. (1903–1992), contract bridge player, administrator and author
 * Easley Blackwood Jr. (1933–2023), musician

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

title: Easley (name)


text:
Clear Lake (region)

Clear Lake, or the Clear Lake Area, is a region in parts of Harris and Galveston County in Texas, United States. It is part of the Galveston Bay Area, which itself is a section of the Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land metropolitan area. The area is geographically characterized by the bodies of water in it and around it, including Clear Lake, Taylor Lake, Clear Creek, and Galveston Bay.

Clear Lake is relatively affluent with a thriving business community. The area's most important business sectors are aerospace and tourism. It is home to the Johnson Space Center and numerous aerospace contracting firms. The lake itself is home to one of the largest concentrations of recreational boats and marinas in the nation.

Name
The Clear Lake region is named, as it implies, for Clear Lake, a brackish lake, fed by Clear Creek, that empties into Galveston Bay.

The name "Clear Lake" is often used in a variety of ways depending on the source. Apart from referring to the lake itself or the region defined by the chamber of commerce, the name can refer to the Clear Lake City residential development, the Clear Lake area of Houston (a Houston "superneighborhood" including Clear Lake City, Johnson Space Center, and surrounding areas), the Clear Lake area of Pasadena, and other geographies as well.

Boundaries
the Clear Lake Area Chamber of Commerce, established in 1962, provides the following definition for the area.

"The Clear Lake Area Chamber of Commerce recognizes the defined "Clear Lake Area" as its service territory. This composite community includes Clear Lake City, Clear Lake Shores, El Lago, Kemah, League City, Nassau Bay, Seabrook, Taylor Lake Village, Webster, and parts of Houston."

- Clear Lake Area Chamber of Commerce

These communities lie on or near the lake. They occupy a compact area lying between Houston and the bay. Clear Lake City is itself a composite community within the Clear Lake Area that spans parts of Houston, Webster, and Seabrook.

History
At the time Europeans arrived the area around Galveston Bay was largely inhabited by Akokisa and Karankawa tribes. The first substantial European presence in the area came as a result of the pirate kingdom established by Jean Lafitte in the early 19th century from his base on Galveston Island. One of the earliest settlers in the region was Anson Taylor, namesake of Taylor Lake, who supplied Lafitte's Galveston colony with produce and game from around Armand Bayou (though his homestead was actually near the Trinity River).

During most of the 19th century the Clear Lake Area remained largely undeveloped. Ranches such as the famed Allen Ranch used much of the area as a cattle range. Toward the end of the century small farming and fishing communities developed. Railroads grew up near the area as well connecting the nearby commercial centers of Galveston, Harrisburg, and Houston spawning new communities such as Clear Creek (League City) and Webster.

In 1901 the oil gusher at Spindletop launched the Texas Oil Boom. Soon oil wells and refineries were built in nearby Goose Creek (modern Baytown) and Texas City. Houston rapidly became established as the main commercial center in the area for the oil industry. The Clear Lake Area became an attractive recreational destination for the new class of wealthy oil businessmen. Much of the area was developed as retreats for the wealthy including a large ranch estate owned by Houston businessman James West. The population increased rapidly including significant immigration from overseas. The Maceo crime syndicate, which ran Galveston at that time, created casino districts in Kemah and other areas of Galveston County (though they were shut down in the mid-20th century).

In 1963 NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) was established in the area. That and the explosive growth of neighboring Houston in the mid-20th century, especially the 1970s and 80s, caused significant urbanization. The Clear Lake City community was created by the Friendswood Development Company, a venture of Humble Oil and Dell E. Webb Corporation, to support residential growth near the new NASA facility. Some of the communities around Clear Lake reoriented toward aerospace-related industries. Still tourism and recreation remain core industries of the area today.

Economy

The area's most important employment sectors are aerospace, high-tech (software, biotechnology, electronics, etc.), and tourism. Most other employment in the region is supported by these industries. Also, a significant number of petrochemical and refining industry employees who work at near-by facilities live in the area.

NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) is an important pillar of the area economy. the center itself employs 3,000 civil servants and 12,000 engineering contractors. Businesses around this core include a broad range of high-tech development enterprises. JSC manages more than $4 billion annually in aerospace contracts, and together with numerous private companies involved in space programs and related ventures gives the area one of the highest concentrations of aerospace businesses and expertise in the nation.

The tourism industry attracts millions of visitors each year with attractions ranging from Space Center Houston to the bay itself. Ecotourism, in particular, is a growing sector with destinations such as the Armand Bayou Nature Center, one of the largest urban wilderness preserves in the nation, and the Seabrook Trail System (part of the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail). Biotechnology, which already employs nearly 3000 workers in the area, is a smaller but growing industry in the area enabled in large part by JSC and the Texas Medical Center in Houston. Commercial fishing is one of the older industries in the region and is still a significant economic sector.

Demographics
The Clear Lake Area contains diverse communities. Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the City of Houston the area had following demographic statistics in 2000. The total population of the area was approximately 141,980. The median household income was approximately $64,742 (US). The population was 81.6% white, 4.4% African-American, and 6.1% Asian. The comparable statistics for nearby Houston were a median household income of $36,616, 49.3% white, 25.3% African American, and 5.3% Asian. The comparable U.S. statistics were a median household income of $41,994, 75.1% white, 12.3% African American, and 3.6% Asian.

Apart from Houston, which is only partially within the Clear Lake area, League City is the area's largest community. Taylor Lake Village has the highest median household income in the area and Webster has the lowest.

Education

The primary institution of higher learning in the area is the University of Houston–Clear Lake (UHCL). UHCL is separate and distinct from the University of Houston (UH), but it is part of the larger University of Houston System. The university offers a wide spectrum of programs including what it touts as the most complete biotechnology graduate programs in the state. Additionally San Jacinto College has extension centers in the area.

Primary and secondary education are provided by Clear Creek Independent School District, which serves most of the area's communities with the exception of outlying parts of League City. Clear Creek ISD was ranked as a "recognized" district (the second-highest ranking) by the Texas Education Agency. 25 (65%) of the district's schools were ranked as "exemplary" (the highest ranking) and the rest were ranked as "recognized". For comparison, 29% of all schools in Texas rated by the TEA were ranked as "exemplary".

Culture and recreation
In terms of the restaurants in the region, Katharine Shilcutt of the Houston Press said in 2010 "there's also more to the area than overly-fancy eateries like Cullen's or old mainstays like Villa Capri and the Seabrook Classic Cafe. (Not that we don't cling to nostalgic memories of those last two places, but there's better food to be found in Clear Lake now.)"

Festivals and events
Many annual events take place in the Clear Lake Area. The Blessing of the Fleet boat parade in Kemah is an annual event that celebrates Kemah's history as a shrimp fishing town. The Gulf Coast Film Festival annually showcases independent films from local, regional and international artists in various categories ranging from short films to documentaries. Other annual events include the Wings over Houston Air Fest (Ellington Field), the Ballunar Liftoff Festival, the Oak Tree Festival (League City), and the South Shore Dockside Food & Wine Festival (League City). The Galveston Bay Cruising Association holds regular regatta events on the bay such as the Bay Cup (Lakewood Yacht Club, Seabrook) and the Performance Cup.

Artistic programs
The region offers various artistic programs. The Bay Area Houston Ballet and Theatre group and the League City Ballet offer performances in genres ranging from ballet to American musicals. The Clear Lake Symphony offers multiple performances each year ranging from classical to "pops" performances. The Arts Alliance at Clear Lake, a group of 50 area arts organizations, regularly schedules arts exhibits, musical performances, and other arts programs. The Clear Creek Country Theatre (Nassau Bay) offers regular community theater performances. Additionally various free concerts and other cultural events take place in venues such as League Park Plaza (League City).

Parks and attractions
The Armand Bayou Nature Center is one of the largest urban wilderness preserve in the nation. It features a boardwalk through the marshes, numerous nature trails, and boat tours offering views of natural habitats for animals ranging from bison to seagulls to butterflies. The Texas Armand Bayou Coastal Preserve features one of region's most popular paddling trails. The Seabrook Trail System, which includes Robinson and Pine Gully Parks, offers primitive access to natural habitats for numerous species. These sites are all part of the larger Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail. Other major area parks include Harris County Clear Lake and Bay Area parks, Clear Creek Nature Park (League City) and Challenger 7 Memorial Park (Webster).

Space Center Houston is the tourist arm of the Johnson Space Center and one of the most visited tourist attractions in Texas. Visitors can tour the Space Center grounds, view space capsules and artifacts, and find numerous educational activities including an IMAX theater. The Kemah Boardwalk is a waterfront attraction featuring a variety of rides, restaurants, shops, and other entertainment venues. It is next to the Kemah Marina and hosts annual events such as the Boardwalk Wine Festival. Museums in the area include the Bay Area Museum (Seabrook) and the Butler Longhorn Museum (League City).

Farmers markets in the area, including the Nassau Bay Farmers Market and the Farmers Market at Clear Lake Shores, provide opportunities for area residents to connect with local growers, producers, and other businesses. The League City Historic District provides views of early area architecture in addition to unique shopping venues.

The area contains many marinas for boating and fishing enthusiasts such as the Watergate Yachting Center (Clear Lake Shores). The shoreline of Clear Lake itself has the greatest concentration of recreational boats in Texas and ranks third nationwide (Watergate even claims to be the nation's largest).

Religion
There is one Coptic Orthodox church in the area, Archangel Raphael Coptic Orthodox Church in Clear Lake City.

The Clear Lake Islamic Center Inc. (CLIC) is the largest mosque in the Clear Lake area. It was established in 1996. In addition, the Al-Noor Society of Greater Houston operates the Clear Lake Jama Masjid.

title: Clear Lake (region)


text:
Talk:Cromwell, Oklahoma

Untitled
Please keep in mind the census reported the town of Cromwell as related to zip code. All Cromwell mailing address are from post office box numbers. There are several families in Cromwell who recieve mail from the rual route carriers, in order to do so those living to the south of Cromwell have a Wewoka address and zip code, the west side recieves their mail from Seminole, and from inside city limits as well as north and east of town recieve their mail from Okemah. These families in addition to those previously reported would give a more accurate demographic imformation. Cromwell Oklahoma is a quiet small town. The population, while hard to count, is cultually diverse with approximately 33% Native American, Caucasian and African Americans.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Cromwell, Oklahoma. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cromwell, Oklahoma


text:
Pasargadae

Pasargadae /pə'sɑrgədi/ (from, lit. 'protective club' or 'strong club'; Modern Persian: پاسارگاد Pāsārgād) was the capital of the Achaemenid Empire under Cyrus the Great (559–530 BC). Today it is an archaeological site located just north of the town of Madar-e-Soleyman and about 90 km to the northeast of the modern city of Shiraz. It is one of Iran's UNESCO World Heritage Sites. It is considered to be the location of the Tomb of Cyrus, a tomb previously attributed to Madar-e-Soleyman, the "Mother of Solomon". Currently it is a national tourist site administered by the Iranian culture of world heritage.

History
Pasargadae was founded in the 6th century BCE as the first capital of the Achaemenid Empire by Cyrus the Great, near the site of his victory over the Median king Astyages in 550 BCE. The city remained the Achaemenid capital until Darius moved it to Persepolis.

The archaeological site covers 1.6 km2 and includes a structure commonly believed to be the mausoleum of Cyrus, the fortress of Toll-e Takht sitting on top of a nearby hill, and the remains of two royal palaces and gardens. Pasargadae Persian Gardens provide the earliest known example of the Persian chahar bagh, or fourfold garden design (see Persian Gardens).

The remains of the tomb of Cyrus' son and successor Cambyses II have been found in Pasargadae, near the fortress of Toll-e Takht, and identified in 2006.

The Gate R, located at the eastern edge of the palace area, is the oldest known freestanding propylaeum. It may have been the architectural predecessor of the Gate of All Nations at Persepolis.

Tomb of Cyrus the Great

The most important monument in Pasargadae is the tomb of Cyrus the Great. It has six broad steps leading to the sepulchre, the chamber of which measures 3.17 m long by 2.11 m wide by 2.11 m high and has a low and narrow entrance. Though there is no firm evidence identifying the tomb as that of Cyrus, Greek historians say that Alexander believed it was. When Alexander looted and destroyed Persepolis, he paid a visit to the tomb of Cyrus. Arrian, writing in the second century CE, recorded that Alexander commanded Aristobulus, one of his warriors, to enter the monument. Inside he found a golden bed, a table set with drinking vessels, a gold coffin, some ornaments studded with precious stones and an inscription on the tomb. No trace of any such inscription survives, and there is considerable disagreement about the exact wording of the text. Strabo and Arrian report that it reads:

"Passer-by, I am Cyrus, who gave the Persians an empire, and was king of Asia. Grudge me not therefore this monument."

The design of Cyrus' tomb is credited to Mesopotamian or Elamite ziggurats, but the cella is usually attributed to Urartu tombs of an earlier period. In particular, the tomb at Pasargadae has almost exactly the same dimensions as the tomb of Alyattes, father of the Lydian King Croesus; however, some have refused the claim (according to Herodotus, Croesus was spared by Cyrus during the conquest of Lydia, and became a member of Cyrus' court). The main decoration on the tomb is a rosette design over the door within the gable. In general, the art and architecture found at Pasargadae exemplified the Persian synthesis of various traditions, drawing on precedents from Elam, Babylon, Assyria, and ancient Egypt, with the addition of some Anatolian influences.

Archaeology

The first capital of the Achaemenid Empire, Pasargadae lies in ruins 40 kilometers from Persepolis, in present-day Fars province of Iran. Gardens were of great significance in Persian culture, and the palace complex was constituted by an extensive pattern of gardens stretching from the Tomb of Cyrus to a fortress known as the Tall-i Takht, about three kilometres away, and containing various palaces and other buildings. The architecture showed elements of Elamite and Egyptian or Phoenician decoration as well as Ionian Greek building techniques, suggesting a desire by Cyrus to reflect his imperial rather than simply national kingship.

Pasargadae was first archaeologically explored by the German archaeologist Ernst Herzfeld in 1905, and in one excavation season in 1928, together with his assistant. Since 1946, the original documents, notebooks, photographs, fragments of wall paintings and pottery from the early excavations are preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, DC. After Herzfeld, Sir Aurel Stein completed a site plan for Pasargadae in 1934. In 1935, Erich F. Schmidt produced a series of aerial photographs of the entire complex.

From 1949 to 1955, an Iranian team led by Ali Sami worked there. A British Institute of Persian Studies team led by David Stronach resumed excavation from 1961 to 1963. It was during the 1960s that a pot-hoard known as the Pasargadae Treasure was excavated near the foundations of 'Pavilion B' at the site. Dating to the 5th-4th centuries BC, the treasure consists of ornate Achaemenid jewellery made from gold and precious gems and is now housed in the National Museum of Iran and the British Museum. It has been suggested that the treasure was buried as a subsequent action once Alexander the Great approached with his army, then remained buried, hinting at violence.

After a gap, work was resumed by the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization and the Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée of the University of Lyon in 2000. The complex is one of the key cultural heritage sites for tourism in Iran.

Sivand Dam controversy
There has been growing concern regarding the proposed Sivand Dam, named after the nearby town of Sivand. Despite planning that has stretched over 10 years, Iran's own Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization was not aware of the broader areas of flooding during much of this time.

Its placement between both the ruins of Pasargadae and Persepolis has many archaeologists and Iranians worried that the dam will flood these UNESCO World Heritage sites, although scientists involved with the construction say this is not obvious because the sites sit above the planned waterline. Of the two sites, Pasargadae is the one considered to be more threatened. Experts agree that the planning of future dam projects in Iran will merit an earlier examination of the risks to cultural resource properties.

Of broadly shared concern to archaeologists is the effect of the increase in humidity caused by the lake. All agree that the humidity created by it will speed up the destruction of Pasargadae, yet experts from the Ministry of Energy believe it could be partially compensated for by controlling the water level of the reservoir.

Construction of the dam began on 19 April 2007, with the height of the waterline limited so as to mitigate damage to the ruins.

In popular culture
In 1930, the Brazilian poet Manuel Bandeira published a poem called "Vou-me embora pra Pasárgada" ("I'm off to Pasargadae" in Portuguese), in a book entitled Libertinagem. It tells the story of a man who wants to go to Pasargadae, described in the poem as a utopian city, having the children learned in the school about this "utopic city created by Manuel Bandeira". Manuel Bandeira heard the name Pasargadae for the first time when he was 16 years old, reading a book by a Greek author. The name of the field of the Persians reminded him of good things, of a place of tranquillity and beauties. Years later, in his apartment, during a moment of sadness and anxiety, he had the idea of “vou-me embora pra Pasárgada” (I'm off to Pasargadae) and then created the poem, which surrounds the great part of the Brazilian population’s imagination to this day.

title: Pasargadae


text:
Chaplain Tappman

Chaplain Captain Albert Taylor Tappman (A.T. Tappman) (usually referred to as "the Chaplain") is a fictional character in Joseph Heller's 1961 novel Catch-22 and its 1994 sequel Closing Time. In earlier editions he was called Chaplain Robert Oliver Shipman, but this was changed to Albert Taylor Tappman. Editions published in some other territories, notably Britain, have continued to use the original name. Heller named the character after Charles Allan Tapman, a Penn State University boxer and Class of 1938 graduate that Heller met socially in the early 1950s.

Character overview
He is a naïve Anabaptist minister from Kenosha, Wisconsin, who is tormented throughout the novel by his atheist assistant, Corporal Whitcomb. While easily intimidated by the cruelty of others, the chaplain is a kind, gentle and sensitive man who worries constantly about his wife and children at home. He is the only character in the book Yossarian truly trusts, and the novel opens with:

 * It was love at first sight. The first time Yossarian saw the chaplain he fell madly in love with him.

He is timid and shy, and only through his friendship with Yossarian does he feel comfortable. In particular he enjoys the company of Yossarian and his friends at the staff club, until he is thrown out by Colonel Cathcart after General Dreedle is embarrassed by him.

Also of note is that the Chaplain and Yossarian have the first characteristic Heller-like circular dialogue in the novel, on page 13:

 * "You're a chaplain," he exclaimed ecstatically. "I didn't know you were a chaplain."
 * "Why, yes," the chaplain answered. "Didn't you know I was a chaplain?"
 * "Why, no. I didn't know you were a chaplain."

Name versions
In the original version of the book, Chaplain Tappman was called "Robert Oliver Shipman". In the late spring of 1962, a man who shared Shipman's name and other personal characteristics threatened a lawsuit. Heller had never met the real Shipman and was initially concerned that changing the character's name could confuse readers. Nevertheless, the author agreed to change the name to "Albert Taylor Tappman" beginning with the sixth Simon & Schuster printing, the fall 1962 Dell paperback edition, and later printings of Jonathan Cape's British first edition. In the 1970 film, the character is identified as "Chaplain Tappman"  and is apparently embarrassed by the unfortunate rhyme. British editions by Transworld retain the name "R.O. Shipman".

C.I.D. investigation
The C.I.D. investigators that have been dispatched to the squadron are convinced that the Chaplain has been intercepting Major Major Major Major's mail and signing documents Washington Irving or Irving Washington. Yossarian has been abusing his duty of censoring letters sent home by the enlisted men, and signing those names to the letters he vandalises, except once where he signs "I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army". (Note that Yossarian's duties involve censoring enlisted men's letters; the chaplain is an officer.) This vandalism brings the C.I.D. down to the base.

Later on, Major Major Major Major begins signing those names to official documents, after he discovers that when he does, he never sees them again. Before they would always return with more attached documents to deal with.

These suspected acts of protest result in the Chaplain being interrogated at length by the C.I.D. investigators in the final chapters of the book. They find him guilty of all his "crimes"; since they're his crimes, he must have committed them; they also find him guilty of all the charges against him that they haven't thought of yet. Then they release him. This is actually worse than being jailed, because he never knows when he will be grabbed again.

When Yossarian tells the Chaplain that someone came into his hospital room to torment him with the words "We've got your pal!" the Chaplain replies. "Well, I'm your pal and they've certainly got me." At the end of the novel, all Yossarian's other friends are dead, missing, or, like Doc Daneeka, reduced to bureaucratic zombies. Only the Chaplain remains, and he has definitely been got (although in the last paragraphs he announces his intent to "stay here and persevere"). At the end of the play version, buoyed by Yossarian's escape, he happily writes home to his wife that he has punched Colonel Cathcart in the nose, is cheerfully awaiting his trial and following consequences, and that they think he is crazy.

Film
Chaplain Tappman was portrayed by Anthony Perkins in the 1970 film adaptation of the novel directed by Mike Nichols.

Chaplain Tappman was portrayed by Jay Paulson in the 2019 miniseries directed by George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Ellen Kuras.

title: Chaplain Tappman


text:
Michael Brecker

Michael Leonard Brecker (March 29, 1949 – January 13, 2007), nicknamed Dr. Sax, was an American jazz saxophonist and composer. He was awarded 15 Grammy Awards as a performer and composer, received an honorary doctorate from Berklee College of Music in 2004, and was inducted into the DownBeat Jazz Hall of Fame in 2007.

Early life and education
Brecker was born in Philadelphia and raised in the local suburb of Cheltenham Township, Pennsylvania. He was raised in a Jewish—and artistic—family: his father, Bob (Bobby), was a lawyer who played jazz piano and his mother, Sylvia, was a portrait artist. Michael was exposed to jazz at an early age by his father. He began studying clarinet at age 6, then moved to the alto saxophone in the eighth grade, settling on the tenor saxophone as his primary instrument in his sophomore year of high school.

He graduated from Cheltenham High School in 1967 and spent that summer at the Berklee College of Music in Boston. In Fall 1967, he followed his older brother, Randy, to Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, where he formed a jazz rock group with trumpet player Randy Sandke and others called Mrs. Seamon's Sound Band, named after a dormitory official who disliked longhaired students.

Career
Mrs. Seamon's Sound Band were finalists in the competition at the Spring 1968 Notre Dame Collegiate Jazz Festival, but were disqualified for their interpretation of The Doors song "Light My Fire". The band also performed outdoors on campus in a benefit for presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy in that year’s presidential election. Following that semester, the band accepted a management offer and moved to Chicago, where drugs and a love triangle led to a suicide, which brought Chicago police to the manager's apartment, where all of the band except Sandke and Brecker, neither of whom were at the scene, were arrested. More trauma followed, and according to Randy Sandke, these events had an adverse psychological impact on Brecker which led to later substance abuse.

During the fall 1968 semester at Indiana University, Brecker formed a trio, which included the drummer from Mrs. Seamon's Sound Band, and played gigs at a church basement club called The Owl. Some of that was recorded. He dropped out before the end of the semester, spent a month in Mexico City, then returned to Philadelphia, where he played with Eric Gravatt, Billy Paul, and others.

Brecker moved to New York City in 1969, where he carved out a niche for himself as a dynamic and exciting jazz soloist. He first made his mark at age 20 as a member of the jazz-rock band Dreams, a band that included his older brother, trumpeter Randy Brecker, trombonist Barry Rogers, drummer Billy Cobham, keyboardist Jeff Kent and bassist Doug Lubahn. Dreams was short-lived, lasting only from 1969 through 1972, but Miles Davis was seen at some gigs prior to his recording Jack Johnson.

Most of Brecker's early work is marked by an approach informed as much by rock guitar as by R&B saxophone. After Dreams, he worked with Horace Silver and then Billy Cobham before once again teaming up with his brother Randy to form the Brecker Brothers. The band followed jazz-funk trends of the time, but with more attention to structured arrangements, a heavier backbeat, and a stronger rock influence. The band stayed together from 1975 to 1982, with consistent success and musicality. In 1977 he founded the Seventh Avenue South jazz club with his brother Randy.

Sideman and leader
Brecker was in great demand as a soloist, sideman and session musician. He performed with bands whose styles ranged from mainstream jazz to mainstream rock. Altogether, he appeared on nearly 900 albums, either as a band member or a guest soloist. He put his stamp on numerous pop and rock recordings as a soloist, including notable work with James Taylor and Paul Simon. Other sessions included albums with Steely Dan, Lou Reed, Donald Fagen, Dire Straits, Joni Mitchell, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Billy Joel, John Lennon, Aerosmith, Dan Fogelberg, Kenny Loggins, Frank Sinatra, Frank Zappa, Bruce Springsteen, Roger Daltrey, Parliament-Funkadelic, Cameo, Yoko Ono, Todd Rundgren, Chaka Khan, Orleans, Blue Öyster Cult, The Manhattan Transfer, Average White Band, Players Association, Everything but the Girl, Patti Austin, Art Garfunkel, Carly Simon, The Brothers Johnson, Karen Carpenter, and T-Square.

Brecker also recorded (or performed) with many leading jazz musicians of his era, including Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Hal Galper, Chet Baker, Jan Akkerman, George Benson, Quincy Jones, Charles Mingus, Jaco Pastorius, McCoy Tyner, Pat Metheny, Elvin Jones, Claus Ogerman, Billy Cobham, Horace Silver, Mike Stern, Mike Mainieri, Max Roach, Steps Ahead, Dave Holland, Joey Calderazzo, Kenny Kirkland, Bob James, Grant Green, Don Cherry, Hubert Laws, Don Alias, Larry Goldings, Bob Mintzer, Gary Burton, Yusef Lateef, Steve Gadd, Richard Tee, Dave Brubeck, Charlie Haden, John Abercrombie, Vince Mendoza, Roy Hargrove, and Spyro Gyra, as wel as for French zeuhl-band Magma.

Brecker played tenor saxophone on two Billy Joel albums. In 1983, Brecker played on three tracks on the album An Innocent Man ("Careless Talk", "Tell Her About It" and "Keeping The Faith"). In 1986, he played on "Big Man on Mulberry Street" on the album The Bridge.

During the early 1980s, he was also a member of NBC's Saturday Night Live Band. Brecker can be seen in the background sporting sunglasses during Eddie Murphy's James Brown parody. After a stint co-leading the all-star group Steps Ahead with Mike Mainieri, Brecker recorded a solo album in 1987. That eponymously titled debut album marked his return to a more traditional jazz setting, highlighting his compositional talents and featuring the EWI (Electronic Wind Instrument), which Brecker had previously played with Steps Ahead. In 1987 he featured his new solo album at the JVC Newport Jazz Festival, incorporating the EWI. Brecker continued to record albums as a leader throughout the 1990s and 2000s, winning multiple Grammy Awards.

He went on tour in 2001 with a collaborative group, Hancock-Brecker-Hargrove. This tour was dedicated to jazz pioneers John Coltrane and Miles Davis. Brecker paid homage to Coltrane by performing Coltrane's signature piece, "Naima". The concert CD from the tour, Directions in Music: Live At Massey Hall (2002), won a Grammy in 2003.

Illness and death
While performing at the Mount Fuji Jazz Festival in 2004, Brecker experienced a sharp pain in his back. Shortly thereafter in 2005, he was diagnosed with the blood disorder myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Despite a widely publicized worldwide search, Brecker was unable to find a matching stem cell donor. In late 2005, he was the recipient of an experimental partial matching stem cell transplant. By late 2006, he appeared to be recovering, but the treatment proved not to be a cure. He made his final public performance on June 23, 2006, playing with Hancock at Carnegie Hall. Brecker died from complications of leukemia in a Manhattan hospital. His funeral was held on January 15, 2007, in Hastings-on-Hudson, New York.

Instruments
Early in his career, Brecker played a Selmer Super Balanced Action saxophone, later moving to a lacquer-finished Selmer Mark VI tenor saxophone with silver-plated neck, fitted with a Dave Guardala MB1 mouthpiece and LaVoz medium reeds. His earlier mouthpieces included a metal Otto Link 'New York' STM (during the mid-1970s) and a metal Dukoff in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Brecker also played the drums as he often talked about time, or rhythm, being musically the most important. He displayed his drum prowess during shows with his own ensembles or accompanying students during masterclasses.

Legacy
On February 11, 2007, Brecker was awarded two posthumous Grammy awards for his involvement on his brother Randy's 2005 album Some Skunk Funk.

On May 22, 2007, his final recording, Pilgrimage, was released and received a good critical response. It was recorded in August 2006 with Pat Metheny on guitar, John Patitucci on bass, Jack DeJohnette on drums and Herbie Hancock and Brad Mehldau on piano. Brecker was critically ill when it was recorded, but the other musicians involved praised the standard of his musicianship. Brecker was again posthumously awarded two additional Grammy Awards for this album in the categories of Best Jazz Instrumental Solo and Best Jazz Instrumental Album, Individual or Group, bringing his Grammy total to 15.

Brecker's search in the International Bone Marrow Registry for a match prompted his wife and manager to organize a series of bone marrow drives throughout the world, including the Red Sea, Monterey, and Newport Jazz Festivals. Brecker was subsequently featured in a film directed by Noah Hutton (son of Debra Winger and Timothy Hutton), named More to Live For. It documents Brecker's battle with leukemia, and the production of his final recording. By going public with his illness, Brecker raised tens of thousands of dollars for testing, and signed up many thousands of donors, but was unable to find a match for himself.

Herbie Hancock said that around nine months before his death, Brecker had started practicing Buddhism and three months later joined Soka Gakkai International, a group associated with Nichiren Buddhism. At Brecker's memorial service, Hancock, Wayne Shorter and Buster Williams (who all practice the same form of Buddhism) as well as Brecker's son, Sam, sat in a line with their backs to the audience while facing an inscribed scroll (Gohonzon) hanging in a wooden shrine (Butsudan) and chanted, "Nam myoho renge kyo" for five minutes.

Brecker's widow Susan organized two benefit concerts, the first in 2015 and the latter in 2017. The events were dubbed "The Nearness of You" concert and were held at Jazz at Lincoln Center's Appel Room. The concerts aimed to support cancer research at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) and the work of doctors Azra Raza and Siddhartha Mukherjee. Guest performers included James Taylor, Paul Simon, Chaka Khan, Randy Brecker, Dianne Reeves, Bobby McFerrin, Diana Krall, Wynton Marsalis, Will Lee, Gil Goldstein, Antonio Sanchez, John Patitucci, Adam Rogers, Mike Mainieri, Andy Snitzer, Jack DeJohnette, Chase Baird, Jeff "Tain" Watts, Robert Glasper, Dave Liebman, Joe Lovano, Ravi Coltrane, Nir Felder, Eli Degibri and others.

The Michael Brecker Archive was established in 2013 at William Paterson University in Wayne, New Jersey, in collaboration with Susan Brecker, and Randy Brecker acting as advisor. The archive contains: original pencil and ink tune manuscripts covering Brecker's solo career and collaborations with Elvin Jones, Pat Metheny, Paul Simon, Horace Silver, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea and others; three EWIs; mouthpieces, reeds and other equipment; over 250 commercially released LPs and CDs; over 1200 hours of unreleased live recordings and studio mixes on cassettes, DATs and other digital media; nine practice journals spanning from Brecker's time at Indiana University to the late 1990s; music books from his personal collection; an extensive clippings file; business materials; tour itineraries and record company/tour promotional materials; and over 1500 unreleased photo images.

As leader or co-leader

 * 1975: The Brecker Bros. with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1976: Back to Back with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1976: Don't Stop the Music with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1978: Heavy Metal Be-Bop with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1980: Detente with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1981: Straphangin' with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1982: Cityscape (Michael Brecker and Claus Ogerman) with Marcus Miller, Eddie Gómez, Steve Gadd and Paulinho da Costa
 * 1983: Steps Ahead with Mike Mainieri, Eddie Gómez, Peter Erskine, and Eliane Elias
 * 1984: Modern Times with Mike Mainieri, Eddie Gómez, Peter Erskine, Warren Bernhardt, and Chuck Loeb
 * 1986: Magnetic with Steps Ahead, inc. Victor Bailey, Mike Mainieri, Peter Erskine, Chuck Loeb, Kenny Kirkland, Hiram Bullock, Paul Jackson, Peter Schwimmer, Mitchel Forman and Diane Reeves
 * 1987: Michael Brecker with Pat Metheny, Kenny Kirkland, Charlie Haden, and Jack DeJohnette
 * 1988: Don't Try This at Home
 * 1990: Now You See It… (Now You Don't)
 * 1992: Return of the Brecker Brothers with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1994: Out of the Loop with the Brecker Brothers
 * 1996: Tales from the Hudson with Pat Metheny, Joey Calderazzo, McCoy Tyner, Dave Holland, Jack DeJohnette and Don Alias
 * 1998: Two Blocks from the Edge with Joey Calderazzo, James Genus, Jeff "Tain" Watts, and Don Alias
 * 1999: Time Is of the Essence with Larry Goldings, Pat Metheny, Elvin Jones, Jeff "Tain" Watts, and Bill Stewart
 * 2001: Nearness Of You: The Ballad Book with Pat Metheny, Herbie Hancock, Charlie Haden, Jack DeJohnette, James Taylor
 * 2003: Wide Angles
 * 2007: Some Skunk Funk with Randy Brecker
 * 2007: Pilgrimage with John Patitucci, Jack DeJohnette, Pat Metheny, Herbie Hancock, and Brad Mehldau

As sideman

 * 1969 Score – Randy Brecker
 * 1970 Dreams – Dreams
 * 1971 Air – Air
 * 1971 Imagine My Surprise – Dreams
 * 1971 The Guerilla Band – Hal Galper (Mainstream)
 * 1972 Wild Bird – Hal Galper (Mainstream)
 * 1972 Bridging a Gap – Mark Murphy (Muse)
 * 1972 One Man Dog – James Taylor
 * 1972 Something/Anything? – Todd Rundgren
 * 1973 Berlin – Lou Reed
 * 1973 A Wizard, a True Star – Todd Rundgren
 * 1973 Mind Games – John Lennon
 * 1973 In Pursuit of the 27th Man – Horace Silver
 * 1974 Todd – Todd Rundgren
 * 1974 The Chicago Theme – Hubert Laws (CTI)
 * 1974 Crosswinds – Billy Cobham (Atlantic)
 * 1974 Journey – Arif Mardin (Atlantic)
 * 1974 Hotcakes – Carly Simon
 * 1974 Walking Man – James Taylor
 * 1974 Get Your Wings – Aerosmith (Columbia)
 * 1974 ''It's Always Dark Before the Dawn' – Jonah (20th Century Records)
 * 1974 Waitin' for the Change – Jonah (20th Century Records)
 * 1975 The Rape of El Morro – Don Sebesky (CTI)
 * 1975 Good King Bad – George Benson (CTI)
 * 1975 Shabazz – Billy Cobham
 * 1975 A Funky Thide of Sings – Billy Cobham
 * 1975 Still Crazy After All These Years – Paul Simon
 * 1975 Mothership Connection – Parliament
 * 1975 Born to Run – Bruce Springsteen
 * 1976 The Main Attraction – Grant Green (Kudu)
 * 1976 Tring-a-Ling – Joanne Brackeen
 * 1976 End of a Rainbow – Patti Austin
 * 1976 The Art of Tea – Michael Franks
 * 1976 Songs for the New Depression – Bette Midler
 * 1976 Ringo's Rotogravure – Ringo Starr
 * 1976 Blue Moves – Elton John
 * 1976 Smile – Laura Nyro
 * 1976 In the Pocket – James Taylor
 * 1976 Good King Bad – George Benson
 * 1976 Jaco Pastorius - Jaco Pastorius
 * 1976 Hear & Now – Don Cherry
 * 1976 Reach Out! – Hal Galper (SteepleChase)
 * 1976 Red Beans - Jimmy McGriff (Groove Merchant)
 * 1977 Mel Lewis and Friends − Mel Lewis (A&M/Horizon)
 * 1977 Ghost Writer – Garland Jeffreys
 * 1977 Havana Candy – Patti Austin
 * 1977 "Live at the Berlin Philharmonic" – Hal Galper
 * 1977 Tightrope – Steve Khan
 * 1977 Sleeping Gypsy – Michael Franks
 * 1977 Lady Put the Light Out – Frankie Valli
 * 1977 You Can't Live Without It – Jack Wilkins
 * 1977 Never Letting Go – Phoebe Snow
 * 1977 Ghost Writer – Garland Jeffreys
 * 1977 Ringo the 4th – Ringo Starr
 * 1977 You Can't Go Home Again – Chet Baker
 * 1977 The Best Thing for You – Chet Baker
 * 1978 Zappa in New York – Frank Zappa
 * 1978 Love Explosion – Tina Turner
 * 1978 The Blue Man – Steve Khan
 * 1978 Phonogenic – Not Just Another Pretty Face – Melanie
 * 1978 Double Fun – Robert Palmer
 * 1978 Against the Grain – Phoebe Snow
 * 1978 One-Eyed Jack – Garland Jeffreys
 * 1978 Chaka – Chaka Khan
 * 1978 Boys in the Trees – Carly Simon
 * 1978 Clayton – David Clayton-Thomas
 * 1978 Live at the Bottom Line – Patti Austin
 * 1978 Merge – Jack Wilkins
 * 1978 Cheryl Lynn – Cheryl Lynn
 * 1979 Shadows and Light – Joni Mitchell with Pat Metheny, Jaco Pastorius, Lyle Mays and Don Alias
 * 1979 In a Temple Garden – Yusef Lateef
 * 1979 Arrows – Steve Khan
 * 1979 Keep the Fire – Kenny Loggins
 * 1979 Spy – Carly Simon
 * 1979 Thighs and Whispers – Bette Midler
 * 1979 In Out and Around – Mike Nock Quartet with Mike Nock (p), Michael Brecker (ts) and Al Foster (d)
 * 1979 Fate for Breakfast – Art Garfunkel
 * 1979 Casiopea – Casiopea
 * 1980 Gaucho – Steely Dan
 * 1980 To Chi Ka – Kazumi Watanabe (Columbia)
 * 1980 Body Language – Patti Austin
 * 1980 Aretha – Aretha Franklin
 * 1980 Naughty – Chaka Khan
 * 1980 80/81 – Pat Metheny
 * 1980 Candi Staton – Candi Staton
 * 1981 Escape Artist – Garland Jeffreys
 * 1981 Scissors Cut – Art Garfunkel
 * 1981 Word of Mouth - Jaco Pastorius
 * 1981 Torch – Carly Simon
 * 1981 The Innocent Age – Dan Fogelberg
 * 1981 Three Quartets – Chick Corea
 * 1981 Season of Glass – Yoko Ono
 * 1982 The Nightfly – Donald Fagen
 * 1982 Objects of Desire – Michael Franks
 * 1982 Peter Erskine - Peter Erskine
 * 1983 Pacific Fire – George Benson
 * 1983 In My Life – Patti Austin
 * 1983 Hello Big Man – Carly Simon
 * 1983 In Your Eyes – George Benson
 * 1983 Emergency – Melissa Manchester
 * 1983 Wins – Franco Ambrosetti (Enja)
 * 1983 An Innocent Man – Billy Joel
 * 1983 Fast Emotion – UZEB
 * 1984 Valotte – Julian Lennon
 * 1984 New Sensations – Lou Reed
 * 1984 L.A. Is My Lady – Frank Sinatra
 * 1984 Night – John Abercrombie
 * 1985 Brothers in Arms – Dire Straits
 * 1985 Tentets – Franco Ambrosetti (Enja)
 * 1985 Mastertouch (Torsten de Winkel (g), with (b), Alphonse Mouzon (dr), Joachim Kühn (p))
 * 1985 That's Why I'm Here – James Taylor
 * 1985 Gettin' Away with Murder – Patti Austin
 * 1985 Amanda – Eliane Elias and Randy Brecker
 * 1985 Mezgo – Eddie Gómez
 * 1985 Skin Dive – Michael Franks
 * 1986 The Bridge – Billy Joel
 * 1986 Word Up! - Cameo
 * 1986 August – Eric Clapton
 * 1986 Destiny – Chaka Khan
 * 1986 A House Full of Love – Grover Washington Jr.
 * 1986 Gil Evans and His Orchestra with Gil Evans and His Orchestra – VHS, later DVD-Video in 2007
 * 1986 Hearts and Numbers – Don Grolnick
 * 1987 Exiles – Dan Fogelberg
 * 1987 The Camera Never Lies – Michael Franks
 * 1987 Coming Around Again – Carly Simon
 * 1988 Times Like These – Gary Burton
 * 1988 Getting There – John Abercrombie
 * 1988 Patti Austin – Patti Austin
 * 1988 Lefty – Art Garfunkel
 * 1988 Time in Place - Mike Stern
 * 1988 Never Die Young – James Taylor
 * 1989 Soul Provider – Michael Bolton
 * 1989 City Streets – Carole King
 * 1989 So Far So Close – Eliane Elias
 * 1990 The Language of Life – Everything but the Girl
 * 1990 Have You Seen Me Lately – Carly Simon
 * 1990 The Rhythm of the Saints – Paul Simon
 * 1990 Master Plan – Dave Weckl
 * 1990 My Romance – Carly Simon
 * 1991 New Moon Shine – James Taylor
 * 1991 I'm on Your Side – Jennifer Holliday
 * 1991 Don't Call Me Buckwheat – Garland Jeffreys
 * 1993 Walk the Dog and Light the Light – Laura Nyro
 * 1994 Crossings – Steve Khan
 * 1994 SMAP 006: Sexy Six - SMAP (Victor)
 * 1995 Young Lions & Old Tigers – Dave Brubeck (Telarc)
 * 1995 Infinity – McCoy Tyner (Impulse!)
 * 1995 Strength – Toko Furuuchi (Sony)
 * 1995 Beauty and Harmony – Miwa Yoshida (Epic/Sony)
 * 1995 Abandoned Garden – Michael Franks
 * 1996 The New Standard – Herbie Hancock (Verve)
 * 1996 Across America – Art Garfunkel
 * 1996 Stardust – Natalie Cole
 * 1996 Wilderness – Tony Williams
 * 1996 Merge – Jack Wilkins with Randy Brecker, recorded in 1977
 * 1996 Village – Wallace Roney
 * 1997 West Side Story – Dave Grusin
 * 1997 Give and Take – Mike Stern
 * 1997 Hourglass – James Taylor
 * 1997 A Story – Yoko Ono
 * 1998 Eliane Elias Sings Jobim – Eliane Elias
 * 1999 The Truth: Heard Live at the Blue Note – Elvin Jones (Half Note)
 * 1999 Timeless: The Classics Vol. 2 – Michael Bolton
 * 1999 Barefoot on the Beach – Michael Franks
 * 1999 What It Is – Jacky Terrasson
 * 2000 "Cyrus Chestnut and Friends: A Charlie Brown Christmas" with Cyrus Chestnut
 * 2001 Reunion – Jack Wilkins with Randy Brecker
 * 2001 Drum'n voice (All that Groove) – Billy Cobham [Nicolosi Productions]
 * 2002 Rendezvous in New York with Chick Corea's Three Quartets Band
 * 2002 American Dreams with Charlie Haden
 * 2002 October Road – James Taylor
 * 2002 Live in Paris (2002) (aka A Night in Paris)
 * 2003 Louis Bellson and His Big Band with Michael Brecker, Randy Brecker, Herb Geller, Benny Bailey, Howard Johnson, and Lew Soloff
 * 2003 Nature Boy: The Standards Album – Aaron Neville
 * 2004 Dreamer – Eliane Elias
 * 2004 The Passage Andy Narell – Song for Mia Solo
 * 2004 Live from the Village Vanguard, Vol. 3 with the John Abercrombie Quartet
 * 2004 Horacio Hernandez: Live at the Modern Drummer Festival with Marc Quiñones, Michael Brecker, John Patitucci, and Hilario Durán
 * 2005 Listen Here! with Eddie Palmieri
 * 2005 In The Now – Darren Kramer Organization

title: Michael Brecker


text:
North of Ireland

North of Ireland may refer to:

 * Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland
 * Ulster, a traditional or historic Irish province, made up of 9 counties: 6 in Northern Ireland and 3 in the Republic of Ireland
 * the northern part of the island of Ireland

title: North of Ireland