congrats on meeting less than 7 people in your life

congrats, wp

<H1 class=firstHeading>Wife</H1> <H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3> • Ten things you didn't know about Wikipedia •

Jump to: navigation, search
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5><TBODY><TR><TD>Close relationships</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN></SPAN>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>[size="1"]Affinity • Attachment • Bonding • Casual • Cohabitation • <SPAN>Compersion •</SPAN> Concubinage • Courtship • Divorce • Dower/-ry • Friendship • Family • Husband • Infatuation • Intimacy • Jealousy • Limerence • Love • Marriage • Monogamy • Nonmonogamy • <SPAN>Office romance •</SPAN> Passion • Partner • Pederasty • Polygamy• <SPAN>Platonic love</SPAN> • <SPAN>Psychology of monogamy</SPAN> • Relationship abuse • Romance • Sexuality • Separation • Wedding • Widowhood • Wife[/size]
<SPAN title="View this template">v</SPAN> <SPAN>•</SPAN> <SPAN title="Discussion about this template">d</SPAN> <SPAN>•</SPAN> <SPAN title="You can edit this template. Please use the preview button before saving.">e</SPAN>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> For other uses, see Wife (disambiguation).

A wife is a female participant in a marriage.
<TABLE class=toc id=toc summary=Contents><TBODY><TR><TD><H2>Contents</H2><SPAN class=toctoggle>[hide]</SPAN>

• <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Origin and etymology</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Related terminology</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Differences in cultures</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Christianity</SPAN>
  • <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>4.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Historical status</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>4.2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Contemporary status</SPAN> </LI>
  <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>5</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Islam</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>6</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Hinduism</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>7</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Buddhism and Chinese folk religions</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>8</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Other</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>9</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>See also</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>10</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>References</SPAN> </LI>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <SCRIPT type=text/javascript> //<![CDATA[ if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //]]> </SCRIPT>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Origin and etymology</SPAN></H2>
The term originated from the Middle English wif, from Old English wif, woman, wife, from Germanic * wibam, woman, related to Modern German Weib (woman, wife),<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1]</SUP> from the Indo-European root ghwibh-; wib, meaning veiled or clothed, referred to the wedding veils.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2]</SUP>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Related terminology</SPAN></H2>
Although "wife" seems to be a close term to bride, the latter is the female participant in the wedding ceremony (to her groom), while a wife is the status of a married woman after the wedding, during her marriage. Upon marriage, she or her family may have brought her husband a dowry, or the husband or his family may have needed to pay a bride price to the family of his bride, or both were exchanged between the families; the dowry not only supported the establishment of a household, but also served as a condition that if the husband committed grave offences upon his wife, the dowry had to be returned to the wife or her family; for the time of the marriage, they were made inalienable by the husband.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-2>[3]</SUP> A former wife whose spouse is deceased is a widow, and may be left with a dower (often a third or a half of his estate) to support her as dowager.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-3>[4]</SUP>

Wife refers especially to the institutionalized form in relation to the spouse and offspring, unlike mother, a term that puts a woman into the context of her children. Also compare the similar sounding midwife, a person assisting in childbirth (“Mother midnight” emphasizes to a midwife’s power over life and death).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-4>[5]</SUP>

A wife may, in some cultures and times, share the title of her husband, without having gained that title by her own right.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-5>[6]</SUP>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Differences in cultures</SPAN></H2> <DL> <DD>The various divisions of the following chapters share the previous terminology in English language, notwithstanding religious and cultural, but also customary differences. </DD></DL>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Christianity</SPAN></H2>
Western culture, that is Western Europe and also many of their former colonies, were guided by the Bible in regard to their view on the position of a wife in society as well as her marriage. This image changed considerably in the age of Modernity.

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Historical status</SPAN></H3>
In the Middle Ages and Early Modern history, it was unusual to marry out of love,<SUP class=reference id=_ref-6>[7]</SUP> though it became an ideal in literature.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-7>[8]</SUP> Women were not expected to have any property:<SUP class=reference id=_ref-8>[9]</SUP> they only were given a dowry by their parents to give her husband<SUP class=reference id=_ref-9>[10]</SUP> and inherited only if there were no male offspring.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-10>[11]</SUP> Unable to procure for herself, a woman was forced to submit to the husband chosen to avoid problems (prostitution, or a criminal career,<SUP class=reference id=_ref-11>[12]</SUP>), which has been dealt with extensively in literature, where the most important reason for the lack of equal rights was the denial of equal education for women.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-12>[13]</SUP> The situation was assessed by the English conservative moralist Sir William Blackstone: “The husband and wife are one, and the husband is the one.”<SUP class=reference id=_ref-13>[14]</SUP> The situation changed only in the Married Women's Property Act 1882. Though the wife was generally expected to support the political faction favoured by the husband, satirists like Joseph Addison suggested ironically that the marriage contract might allow the wives to join the political faction independently in order to suit the expectations of their environment, or their peer group.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-14>[15]</SUP> Until late in the 20th century, women could in some cultures or times sue a man for wreath money when he took her virginity without taking her as his wife.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-15>[16]</SUP>

If a woman did not want to marry, another option was entering a convent as a nun<SUP class=reference id=_ref-16>[17]</SUP> to become a "bride to Jesus,"<SUP class=reference id=_ref-17>[18]</SUP> a state in which her chastity would be protected<SUP class=reference id=_ref-18>[19]</SUP> and the woman was economically protected as well.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-19>[20]</SUP> Both a wife and a nun wore veils, which proclaimed their state of protection by the rights of marriage.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-20>[21]</SUP>

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Contemporary status</SPAN></H3>
In the 20th century, two changes happened to Western marriage; the first was the breakthrough from an “institution to companionate marriage”;<SUP class=reference id=_ref-21>[22]</SUP> for the first time, wives became a legal person, and she was allowed her own property and allowed to sue. Until then, wife and husband were a single legal entity, but only the husband was allowed to exercise this right. The second change was the dissolution of family life, when in the 1960s wives began to work outside their home, and with the social acceptance of divorces the single-parent family, and stepfamily or "blended family" as a more “individualized marriage”.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-22>[23]</SUP>

Today, a woman may wear a wedding ring in order to show her status as a wife.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-23>[24]</SUP>

In Western countries today, married women may have education, a profession and take time off from their work in a legally procured system of ante-natal care, statutory maternity leave, and they may get maternity pay or a maternity allowance.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-24>[25]</SUP> The status of marriage, as opposed to unmarried pregnant women, allows the spouse to be responsible for the child, and to speak on behalf of his/her wife; a husband is also responsible for the wife’s child in states where he is automatically assumed to be the biological father.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-25>[26]</SUP> Vice versa, a wife has more legal authority in some cases when she speaks on behalf of a spouse than she would have if they were not married, e.g. when her spouse is in a coma after an accident, a wife may have the right of advocacy.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-26>[27]</SUP> If they divorce, she also might receive - or pay - alimony (see Law and divorce around the world).

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Islam</SPAN></H2>
Women in Islam have a range of rights and obligations. Marriage takes place on the basis of a marriage contract, and for a husband to have more than one wife is very rare.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-27>[28]</SUP> Even today, in some Muslim societies the father may decide whose wife his daughter is going to be and force her into the marriage under threat of murder, although this custom is not based on religion but tradition.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-28>[29]</SUP> Beating his wife, however, is defined as a husband’s right in most schools of Islam, but is strongly discouraged by hadiths.<SUP>[Qur'an 4:34]</SUP>. Women in general are supposed to wear specific clothes, as stated by the hadith, like the hijab, which may take different sizes depending on the Muslim culture, but they are not obliged to do so.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-29>[30]</SUP> The husband must pay a mahr to the bride, which is similar to the dower.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-30>[31]</SUP>

Though for wives there seem to be no external signs, other than being allowed to reveal their entire head to her husband, which is not only stated by the Qur’an but known by even older customs.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-31>[32]</SUP>

A riverside Muslim wedding in India.

The situation of a wife in Muslim society is controversial: Some groups criticize the condition of wives as being "miserable",<SUP class=reference id=_ref-32>[33]</SUP> and propose intolerance to the rule that a husband may beat his wife.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-33>[34]</SUP> Based on the fundamentals of Islam, they emphasize that according to the Scripture, "the Prophet (s) said: "Do not beat your wife" and "Do not strike your wife in the face."<SUP class=reference id=_ref-34>[35]</SUP> Traditionally, the wife has had a high esteem in Islam as a protected, chastise person that manages the household and the family. Progressive Muslims today may also agree on a perfectly equal relationship.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-35>[36]</SUP> The majority, however, is vastly different; not only does sura four, the An-Nisa, allow to beat a wife, but in Germany, a Muslim won a case in Frankfurt when his wife wanted an immediate divorce (additional to the separation already in place, without the one years' respite) due to domestic violence; her request was rejected, based on the argument that it was "custom" and "based on Islamic law". Critics commented the verdict legitimized beating one's wife (see source); in another case, murder of someone for "causing dishonor" ended in sentence of homicide instead, because the person on trial was a Muslim brother killing his sister.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-36>[37]</SUP>

Muslim women have no apparent distinction from unmarried women similar to a Christian wedding ring to show their status as a wife, though this has been a recent adoption in the past thirty years from the Western culture to wear a ring as a wife.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-37>[38]</SUP> Traditionally and most commonly, the only sign of the marriage is the nikah,<SUP class=reference id=_ref-38>[39]</SUP> the written marriage contract.

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Hinduism</SPAN></H2>
In Hindi, wife means a women who shares every thing in this world with her husband and he does the same, including their identity. Decisions are ideally made in mutual consent. A wife usually takes care of anything inside her household, including the family's health, the children's education, a parent's needs.

In Tamil, a wife is known as a "Manaivee". "Manai" means "house", and "manaivee" "head of a household". The majority of Hindu marriages in South India even now are arranged marriages, which means parents that have a son will search for parents with a daughter, through relatives, neighbourhoods, or even brokers. Once they find a suitable family (family of same caste, culture and financial status), they proceed with discussions directly. In the past decades, a marriage out of love has become a rivalling model to the arranged marriage.

Indian law has recognised marital rape, sexual, emotional or verbal abuse of a woman by her husband as crimes. The Britannica mentions that "Until quite recently, the only property of which a Hindu woman was the absolute owner was her stridhana, consisting mainly of wedding gifts and gifts from relatives."<SUP class=reference id=_ref-39>[40]</SUP>

Commonly, a wife wears a red dot on her forehead to show her status as a married woman.

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Buddhism and Chinese folk religions</SPAN></H2>
China's family laws were changed by the Communist revolution; and in 1950, the People's Republic of China enacted a comprehensive marriage law including provisions giving the spouses equal rights with regard to ownership and management of marital property.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-40>[41]</SUP>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Other</SPAN></H2>
In Japan, before enactment of the Meiji Civil Code of 1898, all of the woman's property such as land or money passed to her husband except for personal clothing and a mirror stand.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-41>[42]</SUP>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>See also</SPAN></H2> <SPAN></SPAN>

Look up wife in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• <LI>Marriage <LI>Husband <LI>consort </LI>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>References</SPAN></H2>

1. <LI id=_note-0>^ Etymology of "Weib" <LI id=_note-1>^ American Heritage Dictionary on "wife" <LI id=_note-2>^ Britannica 2005, dowry <LI id=_note-3>^ Merriam-Webster, dower <LI id=_note-4>^ Merriam-Webster on Midwife, and Britannica, midwife <LI id=_note-5>^ Sharing the husband's title <LI id=_note-6>^ William C. Horne, Making a heaven of hell: the problem of the companionate ideal in English marriage, poetry, 1650-1800 Athens (Georgia), 1993 <LI id=_note-7>^ Frances Burney, Evelina, Lowndes 1778, and Seeber, English Literary History of the eighteenth century, Weimar 1999 <LI id=_note-8>^ Elizabeth M. Craik, Marriage and property, Aberdeen 1984 <LI id=_note-9>^ Gail MacColl and Carol McD. Wallace, To Marry An English Lord, p166-7, ISBN 0-89480-939-3 <LI id=_note-10>^ Future of the Children <LI id=_note-11>^ Daniel Defoe, Moll Flanders: theoretical preface <LI id=_note-12>^ for the 18th and 19th century, which contained much criticism of these facts, see also Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Boston 1792 <LI id=_note-13>^ William Blackstone, Commentaries upon the Laws of England <LI id=_note-14>^ Joseph Addison, The Spectator, No.81 <LI id=_note-15>^ Brockhaus 2004, Kranzgeld . <LI id=_note-16>^ Though cloisters' practices were not bound by modern national borders, see sources for Spain, for Italy, and for Britain <LI id=_note-17>^ (Taking) The White Veil <LI id=_note-18>^ (Taking) The White Veil <LI id=_note-19>^ The welfare of the cloister members was ensured by the Catholic Church and the Pope. <LI id=_note-20>^ Silvia Evangelisti, Wives, Widows, And Brides Of Christ: Marriage And The Convent In The Historiography Of Early Modern Italy, Cambridge 2000 <LI id=_note-21>^ ”Companionship marriage” and “companionate marriage” are synonyms (the latter being the older one), although the term usually refers to a relationship based on equality, it might instead refer to a marriage with mutual interest in their children, [1] <LI id=_note-22>^ Stepfamily as individualized marriage <LI id=_note-23>^ Howard, Vicki. "A 'Real Man's Ring': Gender and the Invention of Tradition." Journal of Social History. Summer 2003 pp837-856 <LI id=_note-24>^ Maternity pay and allowance, and work and family guide <LI id=_note-25>^ Cuckoo’s egg in the nest, Spiegel 07, 2007 <LI id=_note-26>^ The restrictions of her abilities to do this vary immensely even within a legal system, see case NY vs. Fishman, 2000 <LI id=_note-27>^ The New Encyclopedia of Islam(2002), AltaMira Press. ISBN 0-7591-0189-2 p.477 <LI id=_note-28>^ Spiegel 07, 2007 <LI id=_note-29>^ Clothes <LI id=_note-30>^ Qur’an verse 4;4 <LI id=_note-31>^ Yvonne Haddad and John Esposito. Islam, Gender, and Social Change, Published 1998. Oxford University Press, US. ISBN 0-19-511357-8. <LI id=_note-32>^ miserable quote <LI id=_note-33>^ Wives in Islam controversy <LI id=_note-34>^ Dr. Haddad, Damascus, Responsibilities of a husband <LI id=_note-35>^ Heba G. Kotb M.D., Sexuality in Islam, PhD Thesis, Maimonides University, 2004 <LI id=_note-36>^ Both cases are described in the main article of Der Spiegel (13), 2007, p.23f, cf. summary <LI id=_note-37>^ Westernized Muslims <LI id=_note-38>^ Nikah in marriage <LI id=_note-39>^ Britannica, Legal limitations on marriage (from family law) <LI id=_note-40>^ Britannica 2004, Legal limitations on marriage (from family law) <LI id=_note-41>^ Britannica, Legal limitations on marriage (from family law) </LI>

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife"

Categories: <SPAN dir=ltr>Family</SPAN> | <SPAN dir=ltr>Marriage</SPAN> | <SPAN dir=ltr>Women</SPAN> | <SPAN dir=ltr>Gender</SPAN>

<H5>Views</H5>

• <LI class=selected id=ca-nstab-main>Article <LI id=ca-talk>Discussion <LI id=ca-edit>Edit this page <LI id=ca-history>History </LI>

<H5>Personal tools</H5>

• <LI id=pt-login>Sign in / create account </LI>

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha(); </SCRIPT> <H5>Navigation</H5>

• <LI id=n-Main-page>Main page <LI id=n-Contents title="Guides to browsing Wikipedia">Contents <LI id=n-Featured-content title="Featured content — the best of Wikipedia">Featured content <LI id=n-currentevents>Current events <LI id=n-randompage>Random article </LI>

<H5>interaction</H5>

• <LI id=n-About-Wikipedia>About Wikipedia <LI id=n-portal>Community portal <LI id=n-recentchanges>Recent changes <LI id=n-contact title="How to contact Wikipedia">Contact Wikipedia <LI id=n-sitesupport title="Help keep Wikipedia running">Donate to Wikipedia <LI id=n-help title="The place to find out about Wikipedia">Help </LI>

<H5><LABEL for=searchInput>Search</LABEL></H5> <FORM id=searchform action=/wiki/Special:Search> <INPUT id=searchInput title="Search Wikipedia [alt-f]" accessKey=f name=search> <INPUT class=searchButton id=searchGoButton type=submit value=Go name=go> <INPUT class=searchButton id=mw-searchButton type=submit value=Search name=fulltext>
</FORM>

<H5>Toolbox</H5>

• <LI id=t-whatlinkshere>What links here <LI id=t-recentchangeslinked>Related changes <LI id=t-upload>Upload file <LI id=t-specialpages>Special pages <LI id=t-print title="Printable version of this page">Printable version <LI id=t-permalink title="Permanent link to this version of the page">Permanent link <LI id=t-cite title="Cite this Wikipedia article">Cite this article </LI>

<H5>In other languages</H5>

• <LI class=interwiki-id>Bahasa Indonesia <LI class=interwiki-br>Brezhoneg <LI class=interwiki-cy>Cymraeg <LI class=interwiki-ja>??? <LI class=interwiki-simple>Simple English <LI class=interwiki-ta>????? <LI class=interwiki-yi>?????? <LI class=interwiki-zh>?? </LI>

<H1 class=firstHeading>Person</H1> <H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3>
<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD class=ambox-image></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The classical definition of a person is "a human being regarded as an individual."<SUP class=reference id=_ref-dictionary1_0>[1]</SUP> In modern usage, the term "person" is subject to dispute and re-interpretation based on alternate definitions. This is especially so for uses that are not necessarily synonymous with the classical definition of human or human being.

For example, in many jurisdictions a corporation may be treated as a "person" under the law. In the fields of philosophy, theology, and bioethics, the definition of 'person' may exclude human beings who are incapable of certain kinds of thought (such as embryos, fetuses with incomplete brain development, or adult humans lacking higher brain functions).<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[2]</SUP><SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[3]</SUP>

These alternative definitions of what constitutes a "person" include a wide and varying range of alternative defining characteristics, some of which have evolved historically, and continue to shift with time and social context. Some other characteristics used to define a 'person' include personal identity,<SUP class=reference id=_ref-corpidentity_0>[4]</SUP> self-awareness, individuality, and a sense of self that persists through time. Other views centre around the degree to which properties such as agency (both human agency and moral agency) and rights are recognized and acknowledged in society or enforcable by law. The recognition of status as a person is known as personhood.

The inquiry into what it means to be a 'person' is the subject of considerable analysis and debate within diverse fields such as religion, medicine, ethics, economic and political theory, human rights, and animal rights.
<TABLE class=toc id=toc summary=Contents><TBODY><TR><TD><H2>Contents</H2><SPAN class=toctoggle>[hide]</SPAN>

• <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Overview</SPAN>
  • <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>1.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Analytic definitions</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>1.2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Normative views</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>1.3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Conceptual views</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>1.4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Metaphysical views</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>1.5</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Artistic depictions</SPAN> </LI>
  <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Personhood in philosophy and theory</SPAN>
  • <LI class=toclevel-2><SPAN class=tocnumber>2.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Personhood theory</SPAN> </LI>
  <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Implications of the person, non-person debate</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Individual rights and responsibility</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>5</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>See also</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>6</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>References</SPAN> </LI>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <SCRIPT type=text/javascript> //<![CDATA[ if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //]]> </SCRIPT>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Overview</SPAN></H2>
The establishment of 'personhood' represents a complex issue that covers a wide swath of human activities and discourse. Generally, the issue can be categorized by the underlying intended uses of the term "person".

Such intended uses include:

• <LI>Analytic: definitions or prescriptive rules used to delineate personhood in a falsifiable formal system; <LI>Normative: moral or deontological arguments to advocate fair and equitable treatment for recognized classes of sentient beings; <LI>Conceptual: descriptive, taxonomical, or epistemological inquiry into the fundamental nature, limitations, and scope of personhood; especially as it relates to the examination of living organisms or other intelligences; <LI>Metaphysical: esoteric or mystical exposition of personhood; especially as it relates to religion, spirituality, or mythical views and beliefs outside ordinary human experience <LI>Artistic: literary, rhetorical or allegorical devices to convey personhood; especially as it relates to fantasy and science fiction<SUP class=reference id=_ref-davidbrin_0>[5]</SUP> </LI>

Discourse on personhood may combine different elements of the previous categories in order to coincide with a particular viewpoint or academic theory. For example, a legal scholar and economist might define a person as "any being with the neurological prerequisites to understand moral consequences and take his life morally seriously." (Markovits) The conceptual and normative elements could then be incorporated into established legal doctrine and economic theory, both of which assume some level of individual choice and personal responsibility.

The normative principle of absolutism is often combined with an analytic definition of persons as co-equal participants in a given society, based on citizenship, nationality or common humanity. This combination is very common in such instruments as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Analytic definitions</SPAN></H3>
A person can have recognition, existence and legal capacity under the law (legal personhood). There are various legally operative definitions for personhood, but they all rely on formal, prescriptive definitions that must eventually be evaluated and falsifiable. Most such definitions form the basis of specific rights that may be exercised or enforced (such as human rights, custody, conservatorship and suffrage). Such definitions may also impose obligations or duties which carry a penalty if they are breached.

Some legally operative definitions of 'person' go beyond the scope of establishing rights and obligations for individual human beings. For example, in many jurisdictions, any artificial legal entity (like a school, business, or non-profit organization) is considered a juristic person. As another example, the United States Constitution has historically applied different definitions of 'person' for the purpose of allotting seats in the House of Representatives.

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Normative views</SPAN></H3>
Recognition as a 'person' is significant in society because it goes to the heart of many debates over the status, respect, rights, and treatments, which are obligatory to different types of living beings. It is closely connected to the societal concept that sufficiently intelligent or self-aware beings should be respected and have their rights enforced for this reason, whereas a degree of exploitation is permissible for entities lacking it. Such exploitation has at times taken the form of slavery or medical torture for humans, and cruelty and vivisection for animals. Personhood is directly connected to issues such as rights and the capability to protect those rights by law or to have them protected on one's behalf if incapable.

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Conceptual views</SPAN></H3>
Human beings represent the most prevalent conceptual definition of 'person'. Some philosophers, like Peter Singer of Princeton University, regard certain types of animals with high cognitive abilities and a degree of societal development as persons, and argue that some human beings — for example, those with certain types of brain damage — are not. Should other intelligent life ever be discovered beyond those known to science, similar questions would be relevant in establishing personhood.

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Metaphysical views</SPAN></H3>
Personhood is held by some to be an attribute of more than just human beings. Some religions specify deities as occupying the place of personhood in many different forms. It is not uncommon for spiritual and archetypal roles to be depicted as "persons".

For example, in the Book of Proverbs the attribute Wisdom is personified:
<TABLE class=cquote><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=20>“</TD><TD vAlign=top>Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:</TD><TD vAlign=bottom width=20>”</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Scripture scholars differ on whether and the extent to which this and other similar personification represents an attribute of the Divine Nature as made manifest in the form of a distinct 'person'.

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Artistic depictions</SPAN></H3>
Personhood is frequently examined through any of several artistic modalities, especially in literary works. In fictional works, fantasy and science fiction often explore the question of personhood by relaxing one or more of the common characteristics associated with it, and then exploring the ramifications and possible consequences. For example, Isaac Asimov introduced the three laws of robotics by relaxing the assumption that personhood is restricted to biological organisms. As another example, David Brin explored the attributes of personhood; especially identity, autonomy, and agency, by depicting a world in which characters could "copy" themselves in the novel Kiln People.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-davidbrin_1>[5]</SUP> An notable example if the character Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation. In one episode Data's status as a legal person was question and a hearing was carried out to determine if Data, an android who lacked human emotions but otherwise met or exceeded all other human mental characteristics such as self-awareness, imagination, creativity etc qualified as a person.

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Personhood in philosophy and theory</SPAN></H2>
Philosophers have expounded on every dimension — from the purely analytical to the metaphysical — in discourses on personhood. Conceptually, a person is defined by the characteristics of reasoning, consciousness, and persistent personal identity. The English philosopher John Locke defined a person as "a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it" (Essay on Humane Understanding, Book 2, Chapter 27, Section 9).

<H3><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Personhood theory</SPAN></H3>
According to Boethius:
<DL> <DD>Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights. </DD></DL>
John Locke emphasized the idea of a living being that is conscious of itself as persisting over time (and hence able to have conscious preferences about its own future).

In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as "personhood theory".<SUP><SPAN title="This claim needs references to reliable sources since January 2007">[citation needed]</SPAN></SUP> This is strongly influenced by Locke's approach. The criteria a person must have in being a person are one or more of the following:

1. <LI>Consciousness, <LI>The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively, <LI>Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it), <LI>Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity. </LI>

Neo-Kantian philosophers over the last two decades have emphasized that conscious awareness requires both:

1. <LI>The sensorial capacity to access an environment (and one's own body) in a way that offers the basic qualitative content for subjective experience. <LI>The intellectual capacity to conceptually interpret sensorial content as representing some thing to oneself. </LI>

Both of these capacities are required for a subject of experience, action, thought, or self-reflection to exist, at least in the physically embodied, world-accessing manner of humans (and presumably other intelligent animals). As Kant wrote:

Without sensibility no object would be given to us, and without understanding none would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (Critique of Pure Reason, A 51 = B 75).

For those who consider an embodied capacity for subjectivity as necessary for personhood, these abstract constraints are quite relevant to the personhood theory debate. Advocates of alternative positions, such as a biological species or potentiality criterion, would instead need to provide arguments against embodied subjectivity as a basis for personhood. For example, one might argue that property claims are made by immaterial minds on immature material bodies, though any claim as to the nature of such minds would be necessarily speculative and would typically involve an argument for Cartesian substance dualism (see "mind-body problem").

In addition speculatively, there are three other likely categories of beings where personhood might be at issue:
<DL> <DD>

• <LI>Unknown intelligent life-forms - for example, should alien life be found to exist, under what circumstances would they be counted as 'persons'? <LI>Artificial life - at what point might human-created life be considered to have achieved 'personhood'? <LI>Modified living beings - for example, how much of a human being can be replaced by artificial parts before personhood is lost? </LI>

<DL> <DD>

• <LI>Further, if the brain is the reason people are considered 'persons', then if the human brain and all its thought patterns, memories and other attributes could also in future be transposed faithfully into some form of artificial device (for example to avoid illness such as brain cancer) would the patient still be considered a 'person' after the operation? </LI>

</DD></DL></DD></DL>
Such questions are used by philosophers to clarify thinking concerning what it means to be 'human', or 'living', or a 'person'.

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Implications of the person, non-person debate</SPAN></H2>
The personhood theory has become a pivotal issue in the interdisciplinary field of bioethics. While historically most humans did not enjoy full legal protection as "persons" (women, children, non-landowners, minorities, slaves, etc.), from the late 18th through the late 20th century being born as a member of the human species gradually became secular grounds for an appeal for basic rights of liberty, freedom from persecution, and humanitarian care.

Since modern movements emerged to oppose animal cruelty (and advocate vegetarian or vegan lifestyles) and theorists like Turing have recognized the possibility of artificial minds with human-level competence, the identification of personhood protections exclusively with human species membership has been challenged. On the other hand, some proponents of "human exceptionalism" (also referred to by its critics as "speciesism") have countered that we must institute a strict demarcation of personhood based on species membership in order to avoid the horrors of genocide (based on propaganda dehumanizing one or more ethnicities) or the injustices of forced sterilization (as occurred in the U.S. to people with low I.Q. scores and prisoners).

While the former advocates tend to be comfortable constraining personhood status within the human species based on basic capacities (e.g. excluding human stem cells, fetuses, and bodies that cannot recover awareness), the latter often wish to include all these forms of human bodies even if they have never had awareness (which some would call "pre-people") or had awareness, but could never have awareness again due to massive and irrecoverable brain damage (some would call these "post-people"). The Vatican has recently been advancing a human exceptionist understanding of the personhood theory, while other communities such as Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. have sometimes rejected the personhood theory as biased against human exceptionism. Of course, many religious communities (of many traditions) view the other versions of the personhood theory perfectly compatible with their faith, as do the majority of modern Humanists.

The theoretical landscape of the personhood theory has been altered recently by controversy in the bioethics community concerning an emerging community of scholars, researchers and activists identifying with an explicitly Transhumanist position, which supports morphological freedom even if a person changed so much as to no longer be considered members of the human species (whatever standard is used for this determination).

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Individual rights and responsibility</SPAN></H2>
Closely related to the debate on the definition of personhood is the relationship between persons', individual rights, and ethical responsibility. Many philosophers would agree that all and only people are expected to be ethically responsible, and that all people deserve a varying degree of individual rights. There is less consensus on whether only people deserve individual rights and whether people deserve greater individual rights than non-people. The rights of animals are an example of contention on this

swing and a miss

the congrats posts and the wp posts are always relevant to someone doing something well

there's an echo in here hi jeri

dex you're really slacking

there were a couple of rail threads in OT and you didnt show up to bitch about them

cmon man get on the ball

cmon man you ve got to rid OT of rail threads it is your destinyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

3rd by a good 4 minutes wp mam

you're aware that ever reply in this thread is a joke on you right? Cuz if you do, youre taking it quite well actually.

yes dexter i do why do you think i posted the wiki article

because you actually think people like it when you do that

slugger, are you ever in the court room?

steve i m in court usually 3 days a week at a minimum

very rarely on Saturday or Sunday though

<H1 class=firstHeading>Slugging percentage</H1> <H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3> (Redirected from Slugger) • Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •

Jump to: navigation, search

Barry Bonds holds the MLB single-season slugging percentage record (.863).



In baseball statistics, slugging percentage (abbreviated SLG) is the most popular measure of the power of a hitter. It is calculated as total bases divided by at bats:



where AB is the number of at-bats for a given player, and 1B, 2B, 3B, and HR are the number of singles, doubles, triples, and home runs, respectively. Walks are specifically excluded from this calculation.

For example, in 1920, Babe Ruth played his first season for the New York Yankees. In 458 at bats, Ruth had 172 hits, comprising 73 singles, 36 doubles, 9 triples, and 54 home runs, which brings the total base count to 73 + (36 × 2) + (9 × 3) + (54 × 4) = 388. His total number of bases (388) divided by his total at-bats (458) is .847, his slugging percentage for the season. The next year he slugged .846, and these records went unbroken until 2001, when Barry Bonds achieved 411 bases in 476 at-bats, bringing his slugging percentage to .863, unmatched since.

Although the term "slugging percentage" is used officially by Major League Baseball, SABR, and many sports media outlets, this is actually incorrect as the formula provides an average, not a percentage.
<TABLE class=toc id=toc summary=Contents><TBODY><TR><TD><H2>Contents</H2><SPAN class=toctoggle>[hide]</SPAN>

• <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Significance</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Perfect slugging percentage</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>See also</SPAN> <LI class=toclevel-1><SPAN class=tocnumber>4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Footnotes</SPAN> </LI>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <SCRIPT type=text/javascript> //<![CDATA[ if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } //]]> </SCRIPT>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Significance</SPAN></H2>
Long after it was first invented, slugging percentage gained new significance when baseball analysts realized that it combined with on-base percentage (OBP) to form a very good measure of a player's overall offensive production (in fact, OBP + SLG was originally referred to as "production" by baseball writer and statistician Bill James). A predecessor metric was developed by Branch Rickey in 1954. Rickey, in Life Magazine, suggested that combining OBP with what he called "extra base power" (EBP) would give a better indicator of player performance than typical Triple Crown stats. EBP was a predecessor to slugging percentage.<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1]</SUP>

Allen Barra and George Ignatin were early adopters in combining the two modern-day statistics, multiplying them together to form what is now known as "SLOB" (Slugging × On-Base) <SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2]</SUP>. Bill James applied this principle to his runs created formula several years later (and perhaps independently), essentially multiplying SLOB × At-Bats to create the formula:



In 1984, Pete Palmer and John Thorn developed perhaps the most widespread means of combining slugging and on-base percentage: OPS. "OPS" simply stands for "on-base plus slugging", and is a simple addition of the two values. Because it is easy to calculate, OPS has been used with increased frequency in recent years as a shorthand form to evaluate contributions as a batter.

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Perfect slugging percentage</SPAN></H2>
The maximum numerically possible slugging percentage is 4.000, which has been achieved momentarily by several players who hit a home run on their first at-bat of the season. Kevin Kouzmanoff, then playing for the Cleveland Indians, hit a grand slam off of Edinson Volquez on his first major-league pitch on September 2, 2006. He thus briefly achieved the best possible offensive percentage in every category, including some esoteric categories such as "runs per pitch" (4.000).

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>See also</SPAN></H2>

• <LI>List of MLB players with a .500 slugging percentage </LI>

<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit]</SPAN> <SPAN class=mw-headline>Footnotes</SPAN></H2>

1. <LI id=_note-0>^ Dan Lewis (March 31–April 1, 2001). Lies, Damn Lies, and RBIs. nationalreview.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-08. <LI id=_note-1>^ Allen Barra (2001-06-20). The best season ever?. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-15. </LI>

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugging_percentage"

Category: <SPAN dir=ltr>Baseball statistics</SPAN>