Talk:Frank Dikötter

Last paragraph should be rewritten

I have removed below paragraph but it has been replaced. For now I have deleted it again.

Dikötter stressed the benefits of opium smoking in Patient Zero and called for the rehabilitation of Republican China under Chiang Kai-shek in The Age of Openness, and generally presents the Chinese Communist Revolution as a scene of unrelenting terror, repression, and statism.[4][5]

I believe the above are very poorly worded statements (mainly as quoting out of context) about Dikötters work.

His main point in book like Patient Zero is that British prohibition of opium was the real menace to Chinese society in the late 19th century, and that the effects of opium were - especially before prohibition - relatively benign and even culturally relevant. There is an image of a China paralyzed by opium, which is what Dikötter is trying to replace here. How one can think that this is best described as 'Dikötter stressed the benefits of opium smoking', which makes him look primarily like an advocate of drug use instead of an historian, is beyond me.

The second part of the paragraph is about the 'rehabilitation of Republican China under Chiang Kai-shek'. The problem here is the word 'rehabilitation', it has a double meaning: 1) to restore to former status 2) to restore the good name. I think the latter is what is meant here, although the former could easily be understood. So even though The Age of Openness is about changing public perception of Republic China (which is generally perceived as terrible, just waiting for revolution), writing that Dikötter wants to rehabilitate it, is a poor choice of words.

Most would argue nowadays that early Communist China was a 'a scene of unrelenting terror, repression, and statism'. To write that Dikötter presents it as such is either rather meaningless, or would imply that it was - in actuality - not a place like that (which seems too value laden for Wikipedia). So again, poorly worded.

I do not mind trying my hand at a rewrite. But I would like to have made the above clear in advance.

Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I would have edited this yesterday rather than revert your deletion, but I only had my tablet available, and it's impossible to edit Wikipedia with that. I agree that the statements were poorly worded so I have tightened them up to accurately reflects the sources. In particular, Dikotter advocates rehabilitation of the history of Republican China, not Chiang Kai-shek's leadership of the country. Let's discuss further if issues still remain.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I have made some further adjustments as I felt some of my points remained valid. The main thing I would like to get across is that Dikotter is seen as a revisionist historian at least where it concerns his last four-five books. This places the main points of those books in a better context. Anyway: fire away! Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine now, good job!  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Dikötter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716204459/http://www0.hku.hk/history/people/staff-frank-dikotter.html to http://www.hku.hk/history/people/staff-frank-dikotter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Bias in “Work” Section- “Patient Zero” and “Narcotic Culture”

This seems rather biased. Which other academics have even reviewed or discussed Patient Zero? Kathleen L Lodwick, having written “Crusaders Against Opium: Protestant Missionaries in China, 1874-1917” in 1996, clearly would disagree with the thesis in “Patient Zero”. Does her opinion result the sum of academia? 2601:441:8380:E420:0:0:0:2A5D (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Garnaut quotation

@Revirvlkodlakuhas reverted two different editors, the original proponent @Y-S.Ko and me, in quick succession on a Garnaut quotation concerning Dikötter's misuse of others' research to tell an "idiosyncratic vignette of totalitarian folly."

This is a fine addition and not overly detailed. It gets us to the heart of the problem of Dikötter's writing without risking SYNTH.

If there is a view that the quotation is as presented by Y-S.ko is too abstruse, then I propose:

In Garnaut's view, Dikötter cherry-picks from Yang's archival research to tell an 'idiosyncratic vignette of totalitarian folly" without historical context. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I still think this is unnecessary detail, as the current content mentioning Garnaut's views seems to cover the topic sufficiently, but I'm happy to go along with the proposed compromise. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)