Talk:Norman Thomas di Giovanni

850 C (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) ==Bias==

Untitled
This looks to me like a horribly biased account of di Giovanni's collaboration with Borges, making it look like the world has missed something from the fact that his translations were not published, or that he did not end up being the only translator. Not at all obvious.Sardath (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It will become obvious, if you read di Giovanni's writings on his website, or newspaper articles about him, that there is no bias in the article, just the facts: he did collaborate with Borges, Kodama did act to try to ensure that his work with Borges became unpublishable, and he did have trouble with people publishing it anyway without his knowledge or permission. The article doesn't say that his translations are better than anyone else's, which would be bias/POV,. but they arguably are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.94.42 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is some bias. For example, the 50-50 royalties agreement between DiGiovanni and Borges is quite unusual, even taking into account the presumed collaborative character of the transation. But this agreement is not mentioned, even though it goes a long way towards explaining why Kodama renegotiated the rights. Kodama by the way is not even mentioned as Borges' wife and heiress. And the article gives the impression that she is responsible for illegal publications of DiGiovanni's translations, which most likely is untrue. I gather asserting DiGiovanni's translator rights to illegal publications without the assistance of the Borges estate is problematic, but it is not Kodama's responsibility to fix that and, after all, she does not benefit from these publications either. By the way I wonder what is the source of the claims about illegal publications. Is there any? Subtler indications of bias are also present as in the fuss about author-translator collaboration (not so rare) and the fuss about "Borges' participation, consideration, and approval," or lack thereof, of translations: Obviously the vast majority of transations are not thus validated by the original authors, most often because they are dead or don't speak the language. As for the quality of DiGiovanni's translations I do not have strong feelings either for or against, but if indeed reputable sources have made the argument that they are uniquely outstanding then I do not see why that should not be in the article. That would not be bias at all.Sardath (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

To the above I should add that di Giovanni himself had placed in his site some of his Borges translations and that Viking-Penguin acted to have them removed. This casts a different light on the talk about illegal publishing. He seems to be himself partly responsible.Sardath (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I preseeded to rephrase the article towards neutrality.Sardath (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia editors should be making judgments here about what does or does not constitute a usual or appropriate contract, given that the matter has been the subject of a legal dispute between the parties involved. If an editor wishes to quote relevant statements by Maria Kodama or Norman Thomas di Giovanni or other interested parties, that can be done with language like "XXX stated that the contract with di Giovanni was etc." Other than that, we should stick to facts that are not disputed. I've removed all weighted language from the affected paragraph.

I am also removing the reference to the date when the collaboration between Borges and di Giovanni ended, as new di Giovanni translations continued to appear for more than a decade after that date. It might be possible to clear this issue up with more careful wording. 850 C (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)