I read the article and some of the responses, including a response from both the author and the co-author explaining some of their choices, and I am rather unconvinced this can be said to be a 'bad' translation. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the nature of language itself is taken for granted to such an extent because of it's subjectivity multiplying the difficulty a translator has when rendering one language into another.

'Honto', in Japanese for example, means 'truth' in english. But, as any knowledge of synonyms could convey, you can translate this also as 'honesty', 'really', and etc. In the legal field, paragraphs upon paragraphs are spent defining what the understanding of a particular word will mean for the purposes of an agreement or interpretation; philosophy and other areas of literature are often much less specific, so I can't really blame any one translator for this.