Talk:Daniel Ladinsky
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Daniel Ladinsky article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Sock Puppet? edit
I strongly suspect that Wabashin is in fact a sockpuppet for the article's subject. Szfski (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The article claims, "Ladinsky notes that he offers interpretations and renderings of the poets, rather than literal or scholarly translations." This appears to be false, as Ladinsky's poems have no apparent relationship to the poetry of the supposed ancient authors. I mean, yes, they're great poems by a best-selling author, but claiming sources like Hafiz and Rumi is like some bizarre kind of reverse plagiarism. If I have time, I will try to find some balancing information, but it would be nice if the original author(s) of the article could straighten this out. Ramseyman (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Fraudulent Activity edit
Can someone make more emphasis that his works are not accurate translations of the source material - perhaps a specific section outside of "Career" so it isn't meshed together? I feel that while this may not legally be fraud, it's at least of the same nature. I have friends who have been swayed by this misrepresentation and it disheartens me that they have been denied the poetry of Hafiz and instead received the work of a charlatan (even if it was well intentioned ignorance). The merits of Ladinsky's work should be judged on its own, but to do what he has done has undeniably marred his work from ever receiving a fair assessment - which is sad because I was enjoying "The Gift" for what it was until I found out the truth behind it.
I particularly feel as if Penguin publishers should be rightly admonished for allowing his "translations" to even be published the way they have been. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC) --I went through and made the edits, I believe this misrepresentation definitely needs to be emphasized and it's something that clearly affronts the very foundation of literary work, both the original creative art, as well as the scholarly and often equally creative and honorable work of those who study and share these works of art across linguistic boundaries. I welcome more discussion of the issue. 2605:6000:EF8C:BC00:A92B:D84A:C5BA:C62E (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)