text:
She Stoops to Conquer

She Stoops to Conquer is a comedy by Oliver Goldsmith, first performed in London in 1773. The play is a favourite for study by English literature and theatre classes in the English-speaking world. It is one of the few plays from the 18th century to have retained its appeal and is still regularly performed. The play has been adapted into a film several times, including in 1914 and 1923. Initially the play was titled Mistakes of a Night and the events within the play take place in one long night. In 1778, John O'Keeffe wrote a loose sequel, Tony Lumpkin in Town.

The play is notable for being the origin of the common English phrase, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies." (appearing as 'fibs' in the play).

Act I
Act I begins at the Hardcastles’ home in the countryside. Mrs. Hardcastle complains to her husband that they never leave their rural home to see the new things happening in the city. Hardcastle says he loves everything old, including his old wife. Mrs. Hardcastle says she was a young woman when she had her first husband’s son, Tony, and he is not yet twenty-one; Hardcastle complains about Tony’s immaturity and love of pranks. Tony enters on his way to a pub, and his mother follows him offstage, begging him to stay and spend time with them.

Hardcastle’s daughter Kate enters. He remarks on her fashionable clothing, which he dislikes. Kate reminds him of their deal: she wears what she likes in the morning and dresses in the old-fashioned style he prefers at night. Hardcastle then reveals big news: his friend Sir Charles’s son, Marlow, is coming to visit, and Hardcastle hopes Kate and Marlow will marry. Hardcastle says Marlow has a reputation for being handsome, intelligent and very modest. Kate likes all but the last part of this description and resolves to try to make a good impression on Marlow.

Hardcastle exits, leaving Kate to think over her visitor. She is joined by her cousin Constance, whom she tells about Marlow’s impending visit. Constance tells her that she knows Marlow: he is the best friend of her suitor, Hastings. The odd thing about Marlow is that he is terribly shy around upper-class women, and therefore often seduces lower-class women instead. Mrs. Hardcastle wants Constance to marry her cousin, Tony, so that Constance’s inherited jewels stay in the family. Constance tells Kate that she pretends to be willing to marry Tony so that Mrs. Hardcastle won’t suspect she loves Hastings. Luckily for Constance, Tony doesn’t want to marry Constance any more than she wants to marry him.

The scene changes to a bar, where Tony is drinking with a group of lower-class men. The bar’s owner says that two fashionable-looking men have arrived who say they are looking for Mr. Hardcastle’s house. Tony realizes that this must be Marlow and decides to trick Marlow into believing that Hardcastle’s house is an inn.

Act II
Act II begins with Hardcastle trying to teach his servants how to behave in front of his guests. Soon after, Marlow and Hastings arrive at what they believe to be an inn. Hardcastle enters and tries to engage his guests in conversation, but the two young men ignore what he says, believing him to be a lowly innkeeper. Hardcastle is shocked by their rude, presumptuous treatment of him.

Marlow insists on being shown his room, so Hardcastle accompanies him. When Hastings is left alone, Constance enters. Upon hearing that Hastings believes he is in an inn, she guesses it is a trick of Tony. Hastings says that they should keep Marlow’s mistake from him, because he will be embarrassed and leave immediately if he learns the truth. Hastings urges Constance to elope with him, but she is reluctant to lose her fortune: the jewels, which she will only inherit if she marries with her aunt’s permission. She promises to run away with him once she has the jewels.

Marlow returns, complaining that Hardcastle will not leave him alone. Hastings tells Marlow that by coincidence, Constance and her cousin Kate are both at this inn. Marlow freezes in anxiety. Kate enters and tries to engage Marlow in conversation, but once Hastings and Constance leave Kate and Marlow alone, Marlow is too nervous to complete his sentences or even look at Kate’s face. He ends the conversation abruptly and rushes off. Before exiting the stage, Kate reflects to herself that if he weren’t so shy, she would be interested in him.

Tony and Constance enter, followed by Hastings and Mrs. Hardcastle. Constance makes a show of flirting with Tony for Mrs. Hardcastle, while he tries to repel her advances. Hastings chats with Mrs. Hardcastle and she points out Constance and Tony, saying that they are betrothed. Tony objects to this loudly. Hastings tells Mrs. Hardcastle that he will try to talk some sense into Tony, and Constance and Mrs. Hardcastle exit. Hastings reveals to Tony that he loves Constance and wants to elope with her. Tony is thrilled and promises to help the couple any way he can.

Act III
Act III begins with Hardcastle and Kate comparing their very different impressions of Marlow. He expresses shock at Marlow’s boldness, while she finds him incredibly shy. Kate convinces her father that they should give Marlow another chance to see what his true character is.

Tony presents Hastings with a box containing Constance’s jewels, which he stole from his mother’s drawers. Constance and Mrs. Hardcastle enter, and Hastings exits. Constance tries to convince her aunt to let her try on her jewels, but Mrs. Hardcastle will not relent. Tony suggests that Mrs. Hardcastle tell Constance the jewels are missing, which she does, upsetting Constance deeply. Tony reassures Constance privately, telling her that he gave her jewels to Hastings, who is preparing for their elopement. Meanwhile, Mrs. Hardcastle has discovered the jewels are indeed missing. Tony teases his distressed mother, and the two of them exit.

Kate enters accompanied by her maid Pimple and wearing the old-fashioned dress her father prefers. She has learned about Tony’s prank and laughs at Marlow’s belief that he is in an inn. Pimple says that Marlow mistook Kate for the inn’s barmaid. Kate says she will take advantage of the mistake, which will enable him to talk to her without such shyness. Pimple exits, and Marlow enters. Kate, pretending to be a maid, speaks to Marlow in the accent of a lower-class woman. Marlow finds her beautiful and immediately begins to flirt with her. He tries to kiss her, but Hardcastle walks into the room and sees them. Marlow flees the room, and Hardcastle tells Kate he is determined to throw Marlow out of his house. Kate persuades her father to give her time to prove to him that Marlow is not what he seems.

Act IV
Act IV begins with Constance and Hastings planning their elopement. Constance tells Hastings that she has heard Sir Charles will soon be arriving, and Hastings tells Constance that he has entrusted her box of jewels to Marlow to keep them safe. They both exit.

Marlow enters, congratulating himself on thinking to give the box of jewels to the landlady (i.e., Mrs. Hardcastle) to keep it safe. Hastings enters, and Marlow tells him he stashed the jewels securely with the landlady. Hastings conceals his disappointment that Mrs. Hardcastle has the jewels back and leaves.

Hardcastle enters and begins to argue with Marlow, whose servants have gotten drunk. Storming away, Hardcastle says he would never have predicted such rudeness from Sir Charles’s son. Marlow is confused by this remark, but at that moment, Kate enters. Marlow, beginning to understand something is amiss, asks Kate where they are, and she tells him that they are at Mr. Hardcastle’s house. Marlow is horrified at his error. Kate does not yet reveal her true identity, pretending instead to be a poor relation of the family. Marlow announces his departure, and Kate weeps at the news. He is touched to see how much she cares about him.

Tony and Constance discuss her plan to elope with Hastings, even without the jewels. Mrs. Hardcastle enters and the two cousins pretend to flirt so she won’t suspect the planned elopement. A letter comes from Hastings addressed to Tony, but because Tony cannot read, his mother reads it to him. The letter reveals the plan for the elopement. Mrs. Hardcastle is furious and tells Constance she is sending her far away to Aunt Pedigree’s house. Hastings enters and yells at Tony for giving away the secret. Marlow enters and yells at both Tony and Hastings for deceiving him about where he is. Constance is utterly distraught and begs Hastings to stay faithful to her even if they have to wait several years to marry. After Constance leaves, Tony tells Hastings to meet him in the garden in two hours, promising to make it all up to him.

Act V
In Act V, Hardcastle and the newly arrived Sir Charles laugh over Marlow’s having mistaken the home for an inn. Hardcastle says that he saw Marlow take Kate’s hand, and he thinks that they will marry. Marlow enters and formally apologizes to Hardcastle. Hardcastle says it doesn’t matter, since Marlow and Kate will soon marry, but Marlow denies having feelings for Kate. When Hardcastle refuses to believe him, Marlow storms out. Kate enters and assures the two fathers that Marlow likes her. She tells the two fathers to hide behind a screen in half an hour to see proof of Marlow’s feelings.

Out in the garden, Tony arrives and tells Hastings that he has driven his mother and Constance in a circle instead of taking them to Aunt Pedigree’s house. Mrs. Hardcastle is terrified, thinking they are lost in dangerous territory. Hastings rushes off to find Constance. Elsewhere in the garden, Hastings tries to convince Constance to elope with him. She says she is too exhausted from the stress of the night to run off. Instead she wants to explain their situation to Hardcastle and hope that he can influence his wife to allow their marriage.

Inside the house, Hardcastle and Sir Charles hide behind a screen and watch Marlow and Kate talk. Kate no longer pretends to be a barmaid, but speaks in her normal voice. Marlow says he wishes he could stay with her, but he does not want to disappoint his family by marrying someone of lower birth. Kate tells him she has the same background as the woman he came to see. Marlow kneels before her, and the two fathers burst out from behind the screen, asking why he lied to them about his feelings for Kate. Marlow learns Kate’s true identity and is embarrassed again at having been so deceived.

Mrs. Hardcastle and Tony enter (Mrs. Hardcastle having realized where she is). Mrs. Hardcastle says that Constance and Hastings have run off together, but she is consoled by the fact that she will get to keep Constance’s jewels. At that moment, however, Hastings and Constance enter. Sir Charles recognizes Hastings and tells Hardcastle that he is a good man. Hardcastle asks Tony if he is really sure that he doesn’t want to marry his cousin. Tony says he is sure, but that it doesn’t matter, since he cannot formally refuse to marry Constance until he is twenty-one. Hardcastle then reveals that Mrs. Hardcastle has been hiding the fact that Tony is in fact already twenty-one. At this, Tony says he will not marry Constance, freeing her to marry Hastings and keep her fortune. Everyone except Mrs. Hardcastle is thrilled that the two young couples – Hastings and Constance, and Marlow and Kate – will marry.

Productions
The original production premiered in London at Covent Garden Theatre on 15 March 1773 with Mary Bulkley as Constantia Hardcastle, and was immediately successful. In the nineteenth century, actor and comedian Lionel Brough debuted as Tony Lumpkin in 1869 and continued to play the character in 1777 performances, whilst an 1881 production of the play was socialite and actress Lillie Langtry's first big success.

In 1964, the play was staged by the Edinburgh Gateway Company, directed by Victor Carin. It was chosen by the Angles Theatre company to relaunch the Georgian Angles Theatre in 1978, about 130 years after it closed. An incident in a nearby house in Leverington may have been the basis of the play. Goldsmith is supposed to have visited his friends the Lumpkins at their home Parkfield, Leverington. Lumpkin moved to Wisbech later and this play was very popular in the local theatre.

Perhaps one of the most famous modern incarnations of She Stoops to Conquer was Peter Hall's version, staged in 1993 and starring Miriam Margolyes as Mrs. Hardcastle. The most famous TV production is the 1971 version featuring Ralph Richardson, Tom Courtenay, Juliet Mills, and Brian Cox, with Trevor Peacock as Tony Lumpkin. Courtenay, Mills, and Peacock also performed in this play at The Garrick Theatre, London, in 1969. The 1971 version was shot on location near Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, and is part of the BBC archive. This play was one of 13 BBC productions that formed the series of thirteen British and European plays called Classic Theatre, the Humanities in Drama. The series was funded in the U.S. by the National Endowment for the Humanities and used as a study aid on video tape by thousands of U.S. students.

In 2008 the play was again produced in Wisbech. The story goes that Oliver Goldsmith wrote the play while staying with the Lumpkin family at Park House in Leverington, near Wisbech and that he lampooned his friend, Nicholas Lumpkin, by turning him into his famous creation, Tony Lumpkin. The real Lumpkin moved to Wisbech after his money ran out.

Type of comedy
When the play was first produced, it was discussed as an example of the revival of laughing comedy over the sentimental comedy seen as dominant on the English stage since the success of The Conscious Lovers, written by Sir Richard Steele in 1722. An essay published in a London magazine in 1773, entitled "An Essay on the Theatre; Or, A Comparison between Laughing And Sentimental Comedy", argued that sentimental comedy, a false form of comedy, had taken over the boards from the older and more truly comic laughing comedy.

Some theatre historians believe the essay was written by Goldsmith as a puff piece for She Stoops to Conquer as an exemplar of the "laughing comedy". Goldsmith's name was linked with that of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, author of The Rivals and The School for Scandal, as standard-bearers for the resurgent laughing comedy.

The play might also be seen as a comedy of manners in which the comedy arises from the gap between the standards of behaviour the characters regard as proper in polite society, and the more informal behaviours they are prepared to indulge or deploy in settings they deem less constrained by such standards. Kate's stooping and Marlow's nervousness are also examples of romantic comedy, as are Constance Neville's and George Hastings' love and plan to elope.

Title
The title refers to Kate's ruse of pretending to be a barmaid to reach her goal. It originates in the poetry of Dryden, which Goldsmith may have seen misquoted by Lord Chesterfield. In Chesterfield's version, the lines in question read: "The prostrate lover, when he lowest lies, But stoops to conquer, and but kneels to rise."

Characters

 * Charles Marlow – The central male character, who has set out to court the young attractive Kate Hardcastle. A well-educated man, "bred a scholar", Marlow is brash and rude to Mr. Hardcastle, owner of "Liberty Hall" (a reference to another site in London), whom Marlow believes to be an innkeeper. Marlow is sophisticated and has travelled the world. Around working-class women Marlow is a lecherous rogue, but around those of an upper-class card he is a nervous, bumbling fool.
 * George Hastings – Friend of Charles Marlow and the admirer of Miss Constance Neville. Hastings is an educated man who cares deeply about Constance, with the intention of fleeing to France with her.
 * Tony Lumpkin – Son of Mrs Hardcastle and stepson to Mr Hardcastle, Tony is a mischievous, uneducated playboy.
 * Mr. Hardcastle – The father of Kate Hardcastle but he is mistaken by Marlow and Hastings as an innkeeper.
 * Mrs. Hardcastle – Wife to Mr. Hardcastle and mother to Tony, Mrs. Hardcastle is a corrupt and eccentric character. She is an over-protective mother to Tony, whom she loves, but fails to tell him he's of age so that he is eligible to receive £1,500 a year.
 * Miss Kate Hardcastle – Daughter to Mr. Hardcastle, and the play's stooping-to-conquer heroine.
 * Miss Constance Neville – Niece of Mrs. Hardcastle, she is the woman whom Hastings intends to court.
 * Sir Charles Marlow – An aristocratic gentleman and father of Charles Marlow; he follows his son, a few hours behind.

Reception
Goldsmith's friend and contemporary Samuel Johnson greatly admired the play. James Boswell quoted him as saying, "I know of no comedy for many years that has so much exhilarated an audience that it has answered so much the great end of comedy – making an audience merry".

Adaptations
There have been a number of film and television adaptations of the play over the years:
 * She Stoops to Conquer, a 1910 silent movie starring Anna Rosemond
 * She Stoops to Conquer, a 1914 silent movie directed by George Loane Tucker and starring Henry Ainley and Jane Gail
 * She Stoops to Conquer, a 1923 silent movie directed by Edwin Greenwood
 * She Stoops to Conquer, a 1939 adaptation for television starring Morris Harvey, Renee De Vaux and James Hayter
 * She Stoops to Conquer, a 1971 BBC television production starring Tom Courtenay, Juliet Mills, Ralph Richardson, Thora Hird, Trevor Peacock and Brian Cox
 * Ночь ошибок (A Night of Mistakes), Soviet television play directed by Mikhail Kozakov in 1974
 * The Kissing Dance, a musical by Howard Goodall and Charles Hart: 1998, for the National Youth Music Theatre of Britain
 * She Stoops to Conquer, a 2003 video presentation recorded live on stage in Bath, Somerset, England
 * She Stoops to Conquer, a 2008 television adaptation directed by Tony Britten and starring Tim Bell, Simon Butteriss, Judi Daykin and Mark Dexter

The play was adapted as an opera by George Macfarren.

title: She Stoops to Conquer


text:
Talk:Curie temperature

Marie Curie?
is this named after Marie Curie?
 * Curie temperature is named after Pierre Curie, Marie's husband, Jan 8, 2003

 * Also confirmed by Encyclopdia Britannica andy 19:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Curie Points
What are the transition curves of different ferrous materials?

why steel losses its ferromagnetic properties at curie temperature

So increasing the temperature causes material to lose it's magnetism. In case of Neo dymium magnets, can this magnetic field be regained by electromagnetism? (eg by putting the magnet in another stronger magnetic field?)

 * Neodymium is ferromagnetic and loses it's spontaneous magnetism above the Curie Temperature when it becomes paramagnetic. Therefore placing it in an applied magnetic field will realign it's magnetic moments resulting in magnetism. However removing the applied field the magnetic moments will become disordered again and will lose it's magnetism.ACGrain (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

-

Temperature and Curie
If a magnet loses it's magnetic field due to heat, then there must be a temperature where the magnet works at it's best, as well as information on how a magnet interacts in near to 0 Kelvin (absolute zero or -274°C). Can someone extend on this?

 * New section on Approaching Absolute Zero added which I hope has answered your query. ACGrain (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Curie point depends on temperature
The Curie point is dependent on pressure and is hard to predict for very high pressures. In particular, it is not possible to say for sure whether the core of the Earth is above the Curie point even though it is very hot. There is a little bit of information on this in the book "The Magnetic Field of the Earth" by Ronald T. Merrill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.6.108 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points
I think it is worth saying that the loss of ferromagnetism at and above the curie point is reversible - i.e. normal magnetic properties are recovered when the temperature is reduced.

Also the meaning of this this sentence is obscure - it has already been said that a material loses its ferromgnetic properties above the curie point, so how can non-existent ferromagnetism combine with paramagnetism ? .... 'At temperatures above the Curie point, an applied magnetic field has a paramagnetic effect on the magnetization, but the combination of paramagnetism with ferromagnetism leads to the magnetization following a hysteresis curve with the applied field strength. '

Andrew Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.50.77 (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that that it would be useful to mention that this is a reversible phenomenon. I originally came to this page with that exact question, and had to spend some time trolling the net elsewhere to find an answer.  I will edit the article to include this bit of info; however, I don't have a solid source to use for citation purposes. If you have one, please add it! Monolith2 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Effect on heat capacity
There is a distinct peak in specific heat around the Curie temperature as energy is absorbed (or released) in destroying (or creating) the magnetic domains on heating (cooling). [ http://www.springerlink.com/content/n87733048p152x72/ ] This peak in heat capacity produces a corresponding dip in thermal diffusivity at the Curie temperature. Other properties are less-affected. This is worth noting. StainlessSteelDoctor (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your caution in changing the encyclopedia, but I'm guessing you know about that info better than anyone else, so my advice to you would be to be bold and change the article yourself. Awickert (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The description reads like its describing ferroelectric not piezo
It may be the case that the curie temperature defines the temperature at which above it won't be piezo electric, but piezo electrics aren't spontaneously polarized to start with as is described. The symmetry requirements for ferroelectrics are a subset of piezos which are switchable and polar (piezos need only be non centrosymmetric). To stop being piezo electric it would have to lose this. PZT is definately piezo electric, but to have a 'displaced central cation' and therefore spontaneous polarisation, it would have to be ferroelectric (and therefore, in general, have even less symmetry). At best it is a bad example, then.131.111.243.37 (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Curie temperature of iron
This article says that the Curie temperature of iron is 768 degrees C., But Britannica and a bunch of other sources say it's 770 degrees C.

References:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/FeliciaLau.shtml

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/146902/Curie-point

Guy Macon 09:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Buschow, K. H. J.Encyclopedia of materials : science and technology,Elsvier, 2001 ISBN 0-08-043152-6 page 5021 table 1 says 1043 K, which is 770 C. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Tc or TC?
Is the correct abbreviation Tc (upper-case T, subscript-lower-case c) or TC (upper-case T, subscript-upper-case C)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guymacon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not aware of a standard for this, and I've seen both choices in refereed publications. Uppercase makes sense to me because it stands for the name "Curie". But that is just my opinion. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I have seen capital C used when there is a critical temperature in general, and small to denote the specific Curie temperature. Danielhedlund (talk)) 11:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

My half-penny - I have usually seen small c for critical temperature and large C for Curie temperature. The Wikipedia article on critical temperature uses a small-c subscript, as do papers from NIST such as https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/74A/jresv74An2p221_A1b.pdf. As subscript lower case is not too readable in small fonts, my old company used Tc for critical temperature (c not as a subscript), and they were by no means alone in this. We used TC in equations that involved the Curie temperature; this appears logical as Curie is a name and TC would be an abbreviation for temperature coefficient (and TC also appeared in our equations!). This convention is also used in NIST papers such as https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=916000PhysicistQuery (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions
I'm a student and for my project I am working on improving this Wikipedia page. I would very much like to interact with other people working on this page and also find out what suggestions and ideas that would contribute towards this. I have currently added a paramagnetic properties section which I hope has made things clearer and will be putting up a ferromagnetic properties sections shortly. I will also be looking through previous ideas on the talk page and hope to contribute answers to these questions in the near future. ACGrain (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Welcome to Wikipedia, ACGrain! I see you caught on to the technical side of citations quickly. It's good, also, that you are adding the citations as you write. I do have one suggestion - there is a lot of material that is only marginally relevant to the Curie temperature and is covered in existing Wikipedia articles. Some examples are magnetic moment, ferromagnetism, ferrimagnetism, paramagnetism, and spontaneous magnetization. I suggest that before you add any more material, think about what concepts are really needed to explain Curie temperature phenomena; and try finding wikilinks for the technical concepts in your text. See Manual of Style/Linking. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 * You make an excellent point, I realise I was perhaps drifting off topic and going into detail that wasn't necessary. I have rewritten parts to link it back to the Curie Temperature and keep it to point with a basic understanding and wikilinks. I hope this reads better and is now relevant? Thank you also for the tips on the code, as you noticed with the citations I was getting a bit muddled before! ACGrain (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

 * The good quality of this page is quite obvious! Overall it is a very informative and explanatory article regarding this very important topic. However, there are some improvements that could be made. I think it could be better to keep a "progressive form" of the article. For example, the first paragraph (above the table of contents) should just be about a first clear meaning of the Curie temperature. This can help anyone who is just curious about the topic and looking for a quick brief explanation! Also, I can see that "magnetic moment" is mentioned before it is explained. A more reader-friendly form of this could be the opposite(but maybe this is not too important!). In addition, I suggest slightly larger images of magnetic orderings. Philipposc (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Curie Temperature of Gadolinium (Gd)
There appears to be a lot of debate over the Curie Temperatures for Gadolinium

The following are references for 289K (16°C)

The following is a reference for 292K (19°C)

A more recent journal states it as 290.6±0.2K

The article below discusses the evidence of metastability near it's Curie Temperature. Gadolinium appears to have a complex system with an unstable magnetic structure which can therefore have different points where the phase transition occurs.

Are there any other thoughts on this matter? ACGrain (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've always been fascinated with curie points, in particular the magnetism behavior right around the curie point. Does the change happen suddenly or does it ease in over a range of temperatures? I've had scientist (I'm a software developer) say it's quite immediate at the curie point and others not sure. What I really wish we had was a graph showing temperature on the X axis and magnetic permiability (or some good measure of whatever it is that changes at the curie point) on the Y axis. Makes sense? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.52.38 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC) This isn't about Gadolinium (title of section), but whether the change is (in general) gradual. Essentially, the effect of the field is to change the crystal structure. This becomes easier the closer we get to the Curie temperature, so the permeability increases as a magnetic material approaches its Curie temperature. On the other hand the available range of change reduces as you approach the Curie temperature. You can see this effect if you look at the magnetisation parameters of ferrites - even when you are relatively far from the Curie temperature (the permeability increases with temperature, and the saturation fields decrease).PhysicistQuery (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

citations and understanding
I have recently added a large amount of content and tried to develop the article so it is of a good understandable level. I also believe the article now has a good level of citations to back up what is written. I would like to know what peoples thoughts are in removing the two boxes at the top of the wiki page? Or if not what is still missing that can fulfil these criteria? ACGrain (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is far too technical for a general purpose encyclopedia and needs to be taken down to a hgihg-schoool level of comprehension. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing the Refimprove tag was a no-brainer. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the lead of the introduction to try and achieve this. What are your thoughts? How does the rest of the article compare on understanding levels? ACGrain (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Applications
I think piezoelectric materials or superconductivity could be mentioned here. Piezoelectric materials are mentioned in another section and therefore a small expansion of the applications of these materials (since they are in a way connected to the curie temperature) would be useful. For instance, a piezoelectric material is the "quartz" we find in watch circuits. Also, in radios, piezoelectric devices can be used in tuners, where the correct strain in the crystal will amplify only the desired frequency. Some powerful superconducting electromagnets can be used in maglev trains, or in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) machines.Philipposc (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I do agree that piezoelectric should be added in some form to the applications but I am unsure about superconductivity, from what I understand the transition temperature for superconductors is different from the Curie Temperature? Or have I misunderstood? ACGrain (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted restructuring that recommended focus on ferroelectrics
This is to describe the reversion I did earlier today. Sorry, I was unable to elaborate in the "Edit Summary" because I accidentally clicked save before doing so. The reverted changes suggested that the terms "Curie point" or "Curie temperature" be exclusive to ferroelectrics. Also, it was argued that the magnetic transition be referred to as the "Néel point". However, I'm not sure these changes represent historical developments or standard usage as suggested by the previous editor. While searching through different references, I found that the term "Néel point" is used for anti-ferromagnetic materials and not necessarily magnetic materials in general. In my experience, Curie temperature can be used for either magnetic or electric phase transitions.

Perhaps a few references could be provided verifying that the reverted edits concerning ferroelectrics should be kept? For now though, I think we should maintain the common usage for Curie temperature as a general term that is primarily associated with magnetic transitions. Rahsecond (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You were right to revert. The additions amounted to an unsourced essay that dismissed the most common uses of the term as "misuse". If some material scientists prefer a different terminology, their view should be added for balance, but only if sources are provided. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Neel Temperature
I propose to merge Neel Temperature into this page (Curie Temperature). The Neel temperature page is a stub, and doesn't contain much information that the page on Antiferromagnetism doesn't already besides the table of temperatures. Alternatively, I was thinking it could be merged into Antiferromagnetism. Opinions on this? --Jaredjeya (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of merging it here. In this article, there are already sections on the Néel point in antiferromagnets and ferrimagnets. In the latter, it's often called the Curie point anyway because for many purposes calling it the Néel point would only confuse. Also, the section on the Curie-Weiss law could be extended to cover two or more interacting lattices. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merging here sounds fine. We might want to clarify the broader scope, and rename the article Magnetic phase transitions. This could help provide background information for topics like spin glass transitions or helimagnetic transition temperatures, which are currently lacking some context (e.g. spin Glass is current tagged as such). I think some of the content here is already beyond the scope of just "Curie Temperature" anyway. $$\langle$$ Forbes72 | Talk $$\rangle$$ 03:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I'm doing this right, anyways it was entirely disrespectful of you, klbrain, to merge Neel temperature and curie temperature. They're both polar opposites.

Neel temperature ENSURES that the metal is magnetic. Curie temperature doesn't guarantee magneticism, tbh. All those metals need magnetized first.

Also, Neel temperature is relevant in the context of the refrigerator effect. So you can't say that if you run enough electricity through anything it'll become magnetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.250.254 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Broken Link
Just noting that the link for reference (currently 5) links to an unrelated Internet Archive book (Voltaire's Candide) instead of the book "Solid State Physics" by Hook and Hall. I don't see an online version of this available, so the link may just need to be removed unless some link sleuth can find one. Rderdwien (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Curie temperature


text:
Talk:Fiction

Other Fiction Not Listed
There should be a section with a reference to Juvenile Fiction, Young Adult Fiction and New Adult Fiction as most people may not realize they exist. The default, IMHO, for users is to come her for other variations of Fiction and with this missing info one may think there is nothing else. I have been researching what/how publishers are using to catalogue and found BISG and their BISAC Subject Heading List. There are only 3 Main fiction, Fiction, Juvenile Fiction and Young Adult Fiction. The New Adult fiction is a subsection of Fiction; Fiction/Romance/New Adult.

It is my belief based on their FAQ page that it's the industry standard that list all the main headings (genres). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekeek (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent lede changes
Whatever the cited sources say about associating fiction primarily with writing, it's reasonable to include screenplays and manuscripts for stage plays under the written fiction rubric. (No need to mention radio plays in the 21 century, eh?) The extent to which the term is applied to any subsequent performance is a whole 'nother question. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I suppose the changes should be rendered as "manuscripts for stage plays and for non-documentary movies" if someone wants to make matters abundantly clear. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section currently says that fiction is creative work portraying individuals, events, or places in ways that are imaginary. However, the truth is that fiction is creative work portraying individuals, events, or places *that are* imaginary, or in ways that are imaginary. No? (And, I'd argue, mostly the former. Clark Kent is an individual who is imaginary. Hogwarts is imaginary. The events in the film Get Out are imaginary. Etc.) Wolfdog (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Webster defines fiction as "an invented story." Fiction is often about real characters, settings, and situations, but told differently from actual history and need not be about imaginary individuals, events, or places.  The lead currently indicates that fiction portrays individuals, events, or places in ways that are imaginary or inconsistent with history, fact, or plausibility.  This is the correct meaning of the term and is consistent with the three cited sources.—Anita5192 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 * As I've already stated above, fiction most commonly indeed is about imaginary characters, settings, and situations. It also may be about real ones but portrayed in ways that are imaginary, as you say. I don't see why both descriptions (like the proposed wording I offered above) are mutually exclusive. And it's certainly not clear what you mean by correct meaning of the term, as word meanings are constantly shifting. Sourced is what's important. In terms of your concerns about being consistent with the three sources, the Lexico source actually even includes my meaning of imaginary events and people rather than your "events and people with imaginary portrayals". The Sageng et al. source defines a work of fiction (a bit circularly) as one in which the characters, places, events, objects and actions referred to are fictional. Again -- not the portrayal of objects, as you say, but the objects themselves. So those two support my original edit you reverted. The third source I have no access to. I request you to review my proposed wording above. Other voices welcome too! Wolfdog (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Not real" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Not_real&redirect=no Not real] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"Creating Stories" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creating_Stories&redirect=no Creating Stories] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Elements of a yarn" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elements_of_a_yarn&redirect=no Elements of a yarn] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Elements of a story" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elements_of_a_story&redirect=no Elements of a story] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fiction


text:
Venality

Venality is a vice associated with being bribeable or willing to sell one's services or power, especially when people are intended to act in a decent way instead. In its most recognizable form, venality causes people to lie and steal for their own personal advantage, and is related to bribery and nepotism, among other vices. Though not in line with dictionary definitions of the term, modern writers often use it to connote vices only tangentially related to bribery or self-interest, such as cruelty, selfishness, and general dishonesty.

Context
Venality in its mild form is a vice notable especially among those with government or military careers. For example, the Ancien Régime in France from the 1500s through the late 1700s, was notorious for the venality of many government officials. In these fields, one is ideally supposed to act with justice and honor and not accept bribes. That ensures that the organization is not susceptible to manipulation by self-interested parties.

In contrast to the previous interpretation, dishonesty is not specifically expressed in the literal meaning, but is often implied. The condition of failing to act justly is not a literal component of the word's meaning either. By definition, committing "venal" acts does not indicate "stealing" or "lying", but rather suggests a consensual arrangement, perhaps without conscience or regard for consequences, but is not synonymous with stealing. While bribery could be related, nepotism clearly has no literal similarity or correlation with venality. Though venality is generally used as a pejorative term, an individual or entity could be venal (or mercenary) and not be corrupt or unethical. One could perform one's duties or job in a perfunctory manner in order to collect a wage or payment, or prostitute one's time or skills for monetary or material gain, without necessarily being dishonest.

Much contemporary use of the words venal or venality is applied to modern professional athletes, particularly baseball, basketball, American football, and soccer players all around the world. The implication being that the highly paid players are essentially "hired guns" with no allegiance to any team or city, and are motivated solely by the acquisition of material wealth.

In revolution and other moral panics
For people to accept settlements and legislation, the acts of the government must be seen as just. This perception enhances the legitimacy of the government. Venality is a term often used with reference to pre-revolutionary France, where it describes the then-widespread practice of selling administrative positions within the government to the highest bidder, especially regarding the Nobles of the Robe.

Thus, for example, venality was a charge for which, in part, Danton and others were executed during the Reign of Terror.

title: Venality