Talk:Enquiry Concerning Political Justice

"Piracy"
"Piracy," as applied to unauthorized copying of creative works, means just that: "unauthorized copying of creative works." But its use in this sense is controversial because, for one thing, it equates unauthorized copying with robbery at sea. Thus, for an encyclopedia to use "piracy" in place of "unauthorized copying" when the latter is in fact what is meant, is for that encyclopedia to take the controversial position that such unauthorized copying is in fact on par with robbery at sea. Since there is no imperative for an encyclopedia to take such a position, nor any good reason for it to do so, and since an encyclopedia ought to avoid such unnecessary controversy, it ought to say what it means. In this case, what was said is "pirated versions," while what was meant is "unauthorized copies." I made an edit to this effect, with an explanatory summary, which was reverted by User:Ottava_Rima with the summary "nope." I've reverted the reversion and invite the reverter to provide a better explanation here, or else leave my good-faith and (I hope) well-reasoned edit intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have nothing reliable to verify what you claim. However, I work in the field and all of the reliable sources I say is that there are pirated copies, not "unauthorized copies". The document is cited to sources. The sources say pirated, not unauthorized. Thus, you are changing the language to contradict the sources, which is vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Verify what? That the term is used as I described? If you believe otherwise, then please explain.


 * Your occupation is irrelevant, although it may serve to expose your bias.


 * McCann's preference for the controversial term is also irrelevant. The article is about Godwin's work, not McCann's ideological opinions on the unauthorized copying of that work. When McCann says "pirated" he means "unauthorized"; this is the language we should prefer, for the reasons stated above.


 * My changes were thoroughly explained; they are not "vandalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 14:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Enquiry Concerning Political Justice → Political Justice – From what I've been able to discern, Political Justice seems to be the common name for the book. It's described by this shorter title in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and in the Shelley-Godwin Archive, as well as in the other books I've read about William Godwin (Marshall 1993; Thomas 2019). As such, I think the title for this article should be shortened further, per the common name in reliable sources. Grnrchst (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. It quite customary to refer to it in shortened form simply as the Enquiry, e.g. in phrases like "Godwin's Enquiry says a, b, c" or "Godwin published his Enquiry in x" (e.g., e.g., e.g., e.g.). Maybe fashion has changed recently, but in my experience, I'd dare say Enquiry might be a more common shortening than Political Justice. Whatever the case, Enquiry is certainly used enough by itself that the article title shouldn't be shortened to omit it. Walrasiad (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)