Talk:Enver Hoxha/Archive 1

Chairman Mao
In Enver Hoxha picture,when he is smiling,he kind of looks like chairman mao (the first communist leader of china).

2003
The free, democratic world reads with both disdain and shock and anger and complete sadness of the life and times of Albania's mericural dictator/serial killer Enver Hoxha (really pronounced Hogena). Today we see his son, Ilir,write a memoir in which his father, a bold-faced liar who praticed his own brand of knee-jerk communism by isolating his country,jailing and killing thousands and proclaiming that all of this great leadership was necessary to keep Albania shoulder-to-shoulder with Marxism-Leninism. Which is a new/old way of saying, "Im a disctator with no education or real ideas of my own and I always wanted to be a serial killer and execute innocent men, women and children with impunity." It's little wonder, and to our credit and high degree of intelligence, that we reject such bloodthirsty,power-hungry tin-horn dictators and expose them for the true serial killers and pushers of an unwanted brand of hate mongering and isolationalism that they truly are! Look in a mirror Enver Hoxha!

Comes now a book of utter garbage and filth and lies by his son, Ilir Hoxha, in which the apologizer for his fathers failed policies now says, "Gee folks, my dad wasnt a dictator, he was a cool,little man beloved by the world and a true democrat!!" What a forgettable,miserable, and worthless apologizer this son turned out to be. Instead of revealing how his father murdered Defense Minister Koci Xoxe and even murdered Prime Minister Mehment Shehu because basically he was a scared, insecure, and jealous whimp of a "leader", we get easy to see thru lies about how daddy Hoxha was a nice grandfather to his little grandsons! When you commit First Degree Murder Mr. Hoxha you don't have any rights in this world of ours and you will be forgotten and ignored by the whole world as you lie moldering in your worthless, paupers grave. Thats right, in one heroic act, thousands of repressed Albanians removed Enver Hoxhas worhtless remains from the Heros's section of their national cemetery, least his cruel, uncaring soul stink up that scared place of high honor. His body now rightfully lies in a paupers grave fit for a serial killer who couldnt cut it as a simple elementery school teacher, so he became a vengeful dictator instead, thereby plunging Albania into a state of exreme dictatorship in which decent,good people were killed because they dared to worship God, or to critize their misfit of a leader. People were shuinned and starved and women were savagely raped in this "kind" dictators prisons. I guess son thought we'd forget-well we haven't. Ture love and understanding and democracy comes by respecting the rights and the feelings and the preciousness of the indiviual.

Hoxha, the cold, rejected butcherer of Albania was a failure as a teacher and an even worse failure as a leader. He was no John F. Kennedy, he was no Mother Theresa and he was certainly no Skanderbeg either. History will forever condemn Enver Hoxha as the Butcherer of Albania. The dictator is gone, Long live Freedom,human Liberties and respect of the individual and their rights,Long Live Democracy! E.R.R. Seattle,Wa. USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.81.26.17 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 21 April 2003 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree; could someone please fix this article? It is the most one-sided article on a dictator in the whole Wikipedia! He transformed his country from "semi-feudalism to an industrialized" nation; he brought "electricity and intellectual enlightenment". But his human rights abuses are only "alleged" by human rights organizations. For goodness' sake! --McCorrection 22:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article was too soft on the regime's repression, but if you'll look at the edit history of the article you'll see that it has been frequently targeted for removal of info that does not reflect well on Hoxha. So it could use some balance from a hostile POV, but don't get out of hand; you just removed some perfectly valid info on improvements in literacy and health, an important feature of his rule. Everyking 00:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I rolled back this revision which seems to be a direct copy from this page (though now I notice that Hephaestos did the same) -- Jim Regan 04:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be about whatever Enver Hoxha was "evil" or not, this is supposed to tell about his person and his achievements, even if whatever they were good or not is disputable. This page should try to reflect an impartial view on Hoxha and shouldn't be influenced by the writer's political opinions or ideology. Of course you must point out both the bad and the good thing he has done as or else the image of him would become faulty. Some of the things mentioned above are hardly relevant, and clearly seen from an Western and Populistic point of view. Not that I agree with the way Hoxha ruled, I still think you must give a proper image of him, and that doesn't mean that is has to be good, deciding if he was good or not is up to the reader of the article, as always. Never forget that because if you don't write in that manor it isn't informative, then it is propaganda, which is hardly the goal of Wikipedia.

In addition, people have been attempting to change Hoxha's title from Leader to dictator. To compromise on this front I tweaked it a bit, as the dffinition of 'Dictator' according to the Random House Dictionary is:

1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

This is clearly inaccurate, and has hence been replaced with a mroe suitable term as defined in the same source:

head of state –noun the person who holds the highest position in a national government Valeofruin (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

spanish cival war
did enver hoxha not fight in the spanish cival war in an international brigadeBouse23 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hugh Thomas (The Spanish Civil War, London, Penguin Books, 2003. ISBN-13: 978-0-14-101161-5) says in page 927 "Enver Hoxha was also a veteran of the Brigades". Nothing else is specified.--89.100.212.147 (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On his title
I think it is wrong to call Enver Hoxha a President of Albania. First, there was no President when Hoxha was in power. Second, the Head of State was a collegial body. Third, Hoxha never leaded that body. In the Communist Albania, as in other Communist countries since Stalin, the party leadership by the First Secretary or the Secretary General of the Central Committee was higher than the State leadership. Andres Andres 02:59, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He may not have been president officially, but he had de facto absolute power in Albania until a few years prior to his death. I guess we should take him out of the list of presidents. Dori 03:08, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So do I. And if we want to have an equivalent to the President then the closest one is the Chairman of the Presidium of the People's Assembly (or something like that). There were three of them during the Communist Albania if my memory doesn't deceive me. Andres 04:32, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed Enver Hoxha was not president of Albania.
 * Chairman of the Presidium of the People's Assembly were:
 * Omer Nishani 1946-53
 * Haxhi Lleshi 1953-82
 * Ramiz Alia 1982-91
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.14.41 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 March 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How do you pronounce his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouse (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 July 2004 (UTC)
 * Prononce It Ho-cha that's what I've been told by my Book of Famous Communists.--Gustuv 00:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The xh is pronounced like the j in English jam. Shorne 19:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes i've used Ho-ja pronunciation before also--Gustuv 23:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Take the H O XH A letter pronunciations from Albanian alphabet (the ogg file) and put them together to get the approximate pronunciation of the word (you'd have to take out uh sounds after the consonants H and XH to get the actual sound). Dori | Talk 00:09, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Text
However, it should be noted that there were several attempts to overthrow Hoxha, including attempted US and UK-backed invasions by Albanian exiles during the late 1940s and early 1950s. I have not found any evidence of these attempts could someone show proof?--Gustuv 04:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a bit POV, but I believe there were some Albanians who went in with the intent of assassinating Hoxha during one of the May Day parades. They weren'ble to though. If I can find the story, I'll post it. I don't remember if there was an English translation, and I have no idea if that would constitute proof. Dori | Talk 00:00, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Some stories (no idea if they're true, still haven't found the one I'm thinking of though): . Dori | Talk 00:48, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * See Vol 2 of Barbara Jelavic's History of the Balkans. Online, see or dozens of other articles about Kim Philby. The program was a failure due to the espionage of the Cambridge Spy Ring. Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.93.198 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 October 2004 (UTC)

Albania
Albania was a communist state under Enver Hoxha, I've watched Albanian Propaganda films which say so--Gustuv 01:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Mihnea Tudoreanu has replaced the fine-tuned intro that previously existed with this:


 * Enver Hoxha (October 16, 1908 - April 11, 1985) was prime minister of Albania from 1944 to 1954 and minister of foreign affairs from 1946 to 1953. As the First Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labour, he was also the de facto leader of Albania from the end of World War II until his death. Under Hoxha, whose rule was characterized by isolation from the rest of Europe and firm adherence to Stalinism, Albania emerged from semi-feudalism to become an industrialized communist state.

First off, the early titles are relatively unimportant and should not constitute the first sentence. The first sentence should refer generally to his role as communist leader of Albania from WWII until his death, as it did before. Also, the country was not a communist state in an economic sense and I will forever resist inserting this dumbed-down formulation into the article. The sentence is plainly referring to the country's economy, and the economy was plainly socialist&mdash;as it said before. Everyking 17:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * And what definition of "socialism" are you using, exactly? Read the socialism article, for God's sake. There are at least 3 different ideologies (Marxism, social democracy, libertarian socialism) which claim "socialism" as their very own. These 3 ideologies further have an immense number of branches and off-shoots, each with their own version of socialism - and these versions are often mutually exclusive (see the Trotskyism vs. Stalinism debate, for example).
 * The only thing that can be said for certain about Hoxha and Albania is that they were Stalinist. Anything else would mean taking sides in the debate between the supporters of various types of socialism.
 * If we use the standard (and original) definition of socialism, which states that Socialism is the economic system in which the workers (or the people in general) control the means of production, then Albania was plainly NOT socialist, since the means of production were controlled by a small minority of Party oligarchs.
 * Further, I certainly agree that the term "communist state" is dumbed-down and inappropriate (not to mention being an oxymoron, since "communism" is a stateless and propertyless system), but this is the term generally used by Wikipedia. If you wish, I will gladly agree to use the term "stalinist state" or "stalinist country" instead. There will be no compromise on your biased use of the word "socialist", however. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:01, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you plan on removing such references from every article that refers to things as socialism or socialist, since there are so many different varieties and interpretations of socialism? It is commonly accepted and proper to refer to Soviet-style states as having socialist economic systems, and moreover, the intro already refers to Hoxha's Stalinism, so it is placed in context. I don't object to the use of the term "communist state" in a political sense, but it is totally unacceptable in a sentence about economics. To remove the mention of socialism makes it difficult to give a proper introductory summary of the economic transformation of Albania in these years, but if you can think of a better wording, I'm open to compromise. Perhaps there is a way we could briefly define the kind of socialism that existed in Albania during the Hoxha years without getting into too much wordiness and hairsplitting? Everyking 18:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * A "communist state" is more than a political entity. It also implies a certain kind of economic system. I believe this is already mentioned in the communist state article (and if it isn't, then it should be). However, if you remain intent on not using the term "communist state" in a sentence about the economy, then I will try to think of an alternative description that can be accepted by all sides. In the mean time (until we resolve this dispute), perhaps we should leave the first paragraph saying "...an industrialized state", with no additional adjectives. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In that context, however, it makes sense to read it as referring to the economy. Anyway, I don't know how you can justify removing any mention of the Albanian economy in these years as socialist. We can't use the commonly accepted term for that economic system because a few segments of the left object to it? We can't call the USSR socialist either, logically, and we have to remove all direct references to socialist economics from all articles pertaining to Soviet-style systems, their leaders and sympathetic political parties? Forgive me when I say I am afraid. Everyking 19:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * A "few segments" of the left object to it? Everyone on the left objects to it! No socialist wants to have anything to do with any communist states - and least of all with one as... unusual as Albania. And the communists - virtually all the communists - also reject any connection with Albania. Enver Hoxha managed to become the enemy of every other communist on Earth, remember? Albania wasn't even seen as a socialist country by its fellow communist states! That is, in essence, the reason why I object to calling Albania socialist: Not a single socialist or communist outside Albania saw that country as being socialist. At least the Soviet Union was considered "socialist" by most of its fellow communist states, and by most communists in general. This was not the case for Albania.
 * In addition, let me once again make clear my position on the matter of socialism: Socialism is the economic system in which the workers (or the people in general) control the means of production. That's it. I don't add any other conditions. I am by no means "sectarian" as one of your comments accused me of being. I'm not even picky on the issue of whether that popular control over the means of production has to be direct or indirect. As long as the people control the means of production, or control an institution (such as the state) which, in turn, controls the means of production, then we have a socialist system. But if the means of production are controlled by an all-powerful oligarchy, then I'm afraid we don't have socialism, no matter if that oligarchy calls itself the "Communist Party" and claims to be the "vanguard of the proletariat". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with Everyking. Communist state is not established usage at Wikipedia&mdash;or, if it is, it shouldn't be. It is indeed a dumbed-down and deceptive term. The correct term for a state like Albania under Hoxha is socialist.


 * Saying "an industrialized state" is ridiculous. If you want to dance around socialist, how about "Hoxha led Albania to industrialization''? Shorne 19:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, see my reply to Everyking above. Second of all, I'm afraid "communist state" is established usage at Wikipedia. And third of all, I have nothing against the phrase "Hoxha led Albania to industrialization". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Was Hoxha a suicide also?
I'm pretty sure that I've heard it suggested that Hoxha's death was also a suicide? Is there anything to this? - Rlquall 16:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You probably mean Mehmet Shehu, whose death was officially reported as suicide. Hoxha had diabetes and heart problems, I've never heard it suggested that it was suicide. Everyking 17:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Shehu committed suicide while I was stationed in Germany, I think, perhaps it was more noted there that it would've been in the U.S. Maybe this made enough of an impression on me that later when Hoxha died I somehow just associated the death of Albanian communist leaders with suicide. Thanks for your help. - Rlquall 20:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hoxha did not commit suicide. He died of a ventricular fibrillation. Shorne 19:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Probably the best thing is that he did die. - Rlquall 13:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He was pretty much out of it (mentally) by the time he died. I don't think he could have committed suicide on purpose. Some people have floated rumors that his doctors might have killed him, but it's pretty much a loony theory as far as I know. Dori | Talk 00:03, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Predecessor as leader of Albania
It really seems like a stretch to say the Victor Emmanuel III was the de facto leader of Albania. He (and the Axis) certainly considered himself to be the de jure leader, and I don't ever remember reading who the Allies considered to be such, if anyone. If we are going to say that Hoxha was proceeded by a de facto leader, I would suggest that person would be Benitio Mussolini, since he really ran things in that era. Victor Emmanuel wasn't even the de facto leader of Italy during the Fascist period, if we are going to use that term in its true meaning. - Rlquall 19:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the statement doesn't make much sense, but I have no idea what is meant by de facto anyway. I'm trying to stay out of editing the article, as last time I tried I had a tough time being neutral. I believe the article in the current state skews toward a sympathetic POV (heck, even the picture is an artist rendition from his regime days, anyone notice the resemblence to the Stalin, Mao portraits?). Dori | Talk 00:13, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Industrialisation
There is a pretty obvious contradiction in this article, regarding industrialisation of Albania under Hoxha.

The intro says "Under Hoxha...Albania emerged from semi-feudalism to become an industrialized state."

And later we read: "The vaunted industry of Albania was, in fact, completely fictional"

Camillus McElhinney 21:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Albania did become industrialised under Enver Hoxha. I do not know who your sources are, alas, they are not mentioned, but I have plenty of sources and statistics on Albanian industry under Enver Hoxha. Please update this article as it is one of the poorest I have the displeasure of reading on wikipedia.

"an even worse failure as a leader"
Unless you count his achievements..... No matter what your opinion, the whole point of Wikipedia and indeed intelectual development is to look at the facts. The truth is with Hoxha there were both huge steps forward for Albania, and also the aforementioned human rights abuses etc. The O' Donnell book on Hoxha is pretty much the best, balanced history, it doesn't pull its punches, but it also acknowledges the huge leap taken by the PSR of Albania into the 20th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.91.243 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments by 02:38-2:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC) are here.


 * Well, unfortunately for Hoxha apologists (and that includes relative "moderates" of the field, such as O'Donnell), subsequently to the fall of the communist regime the Albanian borders opened to the world, and it became clear how well the "strides forward" mythology stood to critical examination (that is, not very well at all). And no amount of revisionist history, even of the kind admitting to communist Albania's purges and repression, can change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.62.65 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a site for political bickering. To downplay either Hoxha's crimes or his accomplishments is wrong because then this becomes an opinion page, not a balanced, informative one. Just because you hate O'Donnell because not some anti-communist hack like R.J. Rummell or Richard Pipes does not make him incorrect it accepting both Hoxha's crimes and his accomplishments. It's the equivalent of me going on the George W. Bush page and removing any reference to his accomplishments (far fewer than Hoxha ever had, that's for sure) and then writing throughout the article that he had established a fascist dictatorship without any citations. That's exactly what you're doing here, and its wrong.- p1nkfl0yd, June 19, 2008 20:01 (PST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.100.219 (talk)

This article is filled with POV assessments of Hoxha's rule and needs major work, as well as citations and references. Kwertii 09:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. More of the good things about his rule should be mentioned, such as vastly improved education, sharp life expectancy rise, stopping clan fighting in the north, womens rights, etc. --Mrdie 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"former Muslim"
Absolutely no evidence is given in this article that he was ever Muslim or that he ever renounced it. So I'm removing him from Category:Former Muslims and List of former Muslims. I'm pretty fuzzy on the "atheist" thing, too. Citations needed, although I'll leave it for the moment. — coe l acan t a lk  — 06:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Communists infiltrating wikipedia - trying to spread lies about the dictator
What is this? Can we get a citation?

''By 1950, many reforms were instituted. Illiteracy dropped from around 80-85% to 31%, the regime confiscated farmland from wealthy landowners and consolidated it into collective farms, imprisoning and executing thousands in the process, though also averting famine and greatly improving the quality of agriculture, making it nearly self-sufficient.''

"A Stalinist and fervent nationalist, Enver Hoxha, left, led Albania for 40 years after World War II. Hoxha brought life to Albania’s economy and modernized the nation, but at the cost of human rights. Increasingly isolationist, he moulded Albania into a firmly controlled, self-sufficient outpost of hardline Communism." - MSN Encarta. I added in that part you mentioned to the article from various sources. Hoxha wasn't perfect, but he was treated like he absolutely ruined Albania's economy and made no progress at all before my edits. Even the part I added says "the regime confiscated farmland from wealthy landowners and consolidated it into collective farms, imprisoning and executing thousands in the process".

Furthermore, even the "Killer files" website says good things about him.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hoxha.html

"By the late 1980s the level of illiteracy will have been turned around, with the number of students in the country rising from fewer than 60,000 in 1939 to more than 750,000 by 1987. By 2000 only 15% of the adult population are illiterate." --Mrdie 06:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maoism??
I note that this is part of the series on Maoism and even mentions Enver Hoxha's "swing to Maoism". I think this is quite inappropriate, Enver Hoxha considered Mao, at one point and time, a great Marxist-Leninist, but he never elevated Mao Tse-tung Thought to the point that he considered it the third component of Marxism, nor did he ever say he was a follower of Mao Tse-tung Thought, anyone who has read Enver's "Imperialism and the Revolution" knows that he declared Mao Tse-tung Thought an Anti-Marxist ideology and devotes nearly half of the entire book on denouncing Maoism and the Chinese Revolutionary period led by Mao. So, to call him a Maoist in any sense of the word is quite inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.91.215 (talk) 20:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Finally done with my changes for the article
A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha (1999) made this all possible. --Mrdie (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC) -

This is by far the most balanced Hoxha biography I have seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.233.245 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Toronto: Norman Bethune Institute?
I have heard of the ideological institute (customary for communist nations) in Albania  named after Bethune. They were probably the publishers of Hoxha literature. What has Toronto got to do with it? 59.91.254.121 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha lists the source as. --Mrdie (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember
To discuss and get a clear consensus on all major re-Writes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valeofruin (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my edits done to improve the article (it went from 5 citations to 52) a few months back may have NPOV issues, but they must be discussed here first. --Mrdie (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dictator
From edit summary: "There is still debate on Wikipedia on whether or not it's acceptable to use the term. Let's go to the talkpage and discuss it there" A general debate or one in this particular context? If a general one, where is it? If you're talking about this particular individual, then there isn't one. All works by respected historians refer to him as a dictator.radek (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to the use of the word "dictator" to describe Hoxha. The word dictator is inherently NPOV, the word is almost entirely negative in the minds of everyone on earth. It is not necessary to say "so and so was a dictator" so long as you document why they are considered dictators. I believe that the article currently talks about Hoxha's centralization of power (mainly in the Yugoslav, Soviet, and Final Years portions of the article) and one could already infer that Hoxha held quite a bit of power as a result of these actions. It is incorrect however (as it almost always is) to assume that Hoxha had total power, also known as personal power (aka autocracy) as these early (and even late) power struggles show.

The fact is that just saying "dictator" doesn't actually explain anything. Why was he a dictator? Sure I'd probably find out later in the article, but then again it isn't NPOV if I'm supposed to naturally assume he was a dictator. We should just call Hoxha what he was, First Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labour and for a relatively brief amount of time Prime Minister of Albania among other posts.

We also need to talk about the usages of head of state and head of government. There's two problems with applying these two terms in Albania's case:
 * 1. There was, especially early on, the consolidation of offices by one person (Hoxha as First Secretary of the APL, Foreign Minister, Prime Minister, etc.) which would warrant him being both head of state and government at one point.
 * 2. There was a vanguard party leading the nation per Marxism-Leninism. This means that Hoxha was technically not (post-50's) the head of state or, in a way, even the government. He was head of the party while Mehmet Shehu was technically head of state and government since he was Prime Minister, a government post, as opposed to First Secretary, a party post.

I think the problem here is that the head of state/government usage cannot be used in these situations. It makes sense in the United Kingdom where Queen Elizabeth II is head of state and Prime Minister Gordon Brown is head of government, but not in Albania where the head of state and government were both 'serious' (as opposed to Elizabeth's mostly ceremonial status in Britain) positions superseded by the party. I think it just makes sense to say that he was the leader of Albania, since he was clearly seen as the leader by everyone on earth, and then list the positions he held as proof as the article currently does.

Furthmore you state that "All works by respected historians refer to him as a dictator." Historians are not automatically in adherence to NPOV (at least not in the Wikipedia sense) so that's irrelevant. They can call him what they want since they aren't writing for an Encyclopedia.

As for the Wikipedia dictator debate in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Politics_and_government#Dictators --Mrdie (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The consensus of that discussion appears to be that 'dictator' is not POV and in fact avoiding the term when it clearly applies (as it does in this case) is an example of POV. This + scores of reputable sources means that it should be in the lead. I will comment more later as atm I'm busy with rl. Thanks for the reply though.radek (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when he became "a leader" of the Albanian people and stopped being a bloody dictator? Are we going to debate now if Ceauşescu or Stalin were dictators or not? Sorry for my sarcasm but calling Hoxha "a leader" is funny....--Jacurek (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"A dictator is an authoritarian ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch.[1] When other states call the head of state of a particular state a dictator, that state is called a dictatorship. The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency (see Roman dictator and justitium).[2]" - Hoxha did not have sole or absolute power in Albania, as pointed out by Mrdie there were most deffinately other party officials that exercised a great deal of influence in the PPSH.

- And as if that were not enough a Dictator is technically a Head of State anyway. Why use such a negative term when you don't have to? That runs counter to WP:NPOV, as it is up to the reader to decide whether Hoxha as a head of state was necessarily a dictator. - "Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide." - WP:NPOV - I contest that there is no reason to label Hoxha a 'Dictator' that is entirely an opinion, and he should be labeled a head of state. It is entirely up to the reader to analyse the facts, and decide whether or not he can be classified as a dictator, and the label can therefore be replaced.

P.S. Jacurek, yes, there already is a debate over whether Stalin and Ceausescu were dictators, see their respective talk pages for details. Valeofruin (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?..... now I'm curious... So who was Hitler now ? :)--Jacurek (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to start calling people dictators, then everyone accused of being a dictator should be called it. Lenin, Stalin, Ceaușescu, Mengistu Haile Mariam, etc. It must be understood that it has to be an all or nothing approach, because partial "this person's a dictator" does not adhere to neutrality.

"Are you serious?..... now I'm curious... So who was Hitler now"

Even I wouldn't call him a dictator simply because I'm opposed to the word in general, but let's make sure, as I said, that every suspected/agreed on dictator is called as such, Hoxha included.

"The consensus of that discussion appears to be that 'dictator' is not POV and in fact avoiding the term when it clearly applies (as it does in this case) is an example of POV."

Dictator is POV in the sense that not everyone automatically sees him as one and it's assuming an immediate viewpoint at the very start of the article. It isnt saying "Hoxha was First Secretary of the APL" (which is a fact), it's saying he was a dictator, which certainly isn't a title he officially held nor wanted to hold (nor is it an actual title anymore, it's an opinion), ergo it should not be treated as neutral wording. I don't see how you can argue that it's neutral to basically say "Hoxha was a tyrant" from the start of the article. Do you believe he was? Cool. Let us work together to expand the article and note incidents that would prove his tyranny, which would make sense and be a good way of showing people what Hoxha was. The fact that we're disputing the usage right now on both grounds of neutrality and grounds of how well it informs people ("and so... HOXHA WAS A DICTATOR, case closed, reading the article wasn't even necessary") shows that it's an opinion.

As a note I haven't found other Encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) that use the word to describe Hoxha. --Mrdie (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, some are comparing G.W. Bush to Adolf Hitler now days, which in mine opinion is another absurd, so nothing is surprising me anymore.. What about "authoritarian leader" would that be o.k.? Dictators like Hoxha, Mao, Stalin, Castro etc. should have at least that at the their leads lines...--Jacurek (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Per discussion at the link Mrdie provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Politics_and_government#Dictators) please note two things. First, just because a word has negative connotations does not automatically make it POV. The term "serial killer" has plenty of negative connotations but if I say "Ted Bundy was a serial killer" that is not a POV use of the term but rather a verifiable fact. So 'dictator' is NOT an automatically POV term, even if it does have negative connotations. Second, the same term can be used in a POV and NPOV ways. As the example in the discussion states, lots of people use the term "fascist" as an insult and writing for example "Bush is a fascist" would be POV. But there are also people and organizations out there that really are fascist and describing them as such is not POV. This is basically the case here (as it is with Hitler, Stalin, Ceaușescu and others). Virtually all historians use the term to refer to Hoxha. The term has a well defined meaning and criteria (again per discussion linked to above) and so the usage of the term is verifiable. It applies. This also means that whether the term is POV or not depends on the context. One can certainly think of leaders who straddled the fence between dictator/not dictator and where the usage of the term would be fairly subjective and hence POV. But again, this is not the case in this instance. In fact, as the linked discussion states AVOIDING the term when it clearly applies is an example of POV.


 * Also. Just because "head of state" was there before "dictator" and the discussion is ongoing is not a valid basis for revert (this is generally known as the "tyranny of the status quo"). Furthermore, before "head of state" was there, "dictator" was there until Valeofruin changed it. So even if it was a valid basis for a revert, it doesn't apply.
 * Finally, for the sake of compromise I'd be alright with "authoritarian leader" though I think that's whitewashing things a bit.radek (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's objective that Ted Bundy killed people and was a serial killer, politics is almost completely subjective.

"But there are also people and organizations out there that really are fascist and describing them as such is not POV. This is basically the case here (as it is with Hitler, Stalin, Ceaușescu and others)."

Except fascism is an ideology and many people happily and openly embraced it as a glorious new road for the liberation of all mankind. To them it isn't an insult, it's a complement. There are types like Salazar in Portugal, Vargas in Brazil, etc. that could be described as quasi or semi fascist, but Salazar's article doesn't suddenly say "Salazar, who was a Mussolini-loving fascist dictator" in the opening. It explains throughout the article Salazar's policies and how they could generally be agreed to mean that he was inspired by fascism, just like we could write about Hoxha and how his policies worked and what they resulted in which would generate a pretty clear view in people's minds as they conclude things for themselves. We already have Hoxha being a communist leader in the opening (it states the fact that the APL was Communist) and I have no objection to that because Hoxha himself declared that he was a Communist and the APL proclaimed Marxism-Leninism as its ideology. I don't see it as an insult to stress he was a Communist in the opening because that's an ideology, it isn't a word used to condemn someone.

The change from "dictator" back to "head of state" isn't a "tyranny of the status-quo" because we are openly discussing right here whether or not said status-quo should be changed, and I support changing it to leader because IMO head of state makes no sense in this period of Albania.

The fact is that the term is under debate. Just saying "'Kay I said my piece, time to change it" is improper IMO. When the debate is done and it's agreed on what to call Hoxha (who was certainly leader of Albania), then it can be changed. Furthermore when you argue that using "authoritarian leader" is whitewashing then it's clear that you believe the Hoxha article itself is a whitewash. The answer isn't necessarily to state he was authoritarian from the get-go (although authoritarian leader is an alright term), but to further show his less-than-pleasant side in the article if necessary. For this we'd need to discuss exactly what parts need changing, and I'm open to change. --Mrdie (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

So what now about the page with list of dictators here[] ? Are we going to change that to " List of special head of states" ? :) P.S. Sorry again for my sarcasm but I can't help it :)--Jacurek (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatis Albania and his bloody dictator doing here ? Everything needs to be updated now...[] :)

As I said, I'll be okay with the term "dictator" only if the policy of everyone being accused of being a dictator being listed and described as a dictator is enforced. You cannot have it so Hoxha is described as a dictator while Pinochet and such are not. Since that's impossible however and a dumb policy to enforce I'd argue the alternative, that he be referred too as leader because that's what he was while the article explains his rule and, quite frankly, most people from the outset would say he was a dictator to begin with without the word being necessary. (One party state, First Secretary of said party, was a Communist leader, etc.) --Mrdie (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mrdie, I fully concur that Pinochet should be described as a dictator. In fact after reading your post I went over to that article with the intention of putting 'dictator' in the lead for the reasons you describe. As it turns out the article already states "Pinochet Ugarte (November 25, 1915 – December 10, 2006) was a Chilean military officer and dictator". So while there's no official policy on 'enforcing' the usage of the term, common sense seems to prevail on at least some of the related article. As it should here.
 * The phrase 'tyranny of the status quo' refers to the fallacious argument that just because things were a certain way in the past (Hoxha being referred to as "leader" rather than a "dictator") that means that they cannot be changed without some arbitrarily high burden of evidence being met. And like I said, the description of Hoxha as "leader" rather than "dictator" is fairly new as well so it's not even a real 'status quo'.radek (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting edit, To be 100% honest I am against calling any leader a dictator, even Hitler. As even Hitler did not hold supreme power. With the exception of a few Roman leads (who's official title was in fact dictator), better words can be found.

Now as for those that point to Hitler, allow to me quote the Hitler Article.

"He was the ruler of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as Chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state (Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945."

The reality is even Adolf Hitler himself saw a neutrality dispute, and it was agreed to not use the word 'dictator' in the opening lines, but to use his technical titles.

Now if editors can agree not to call Hitler a dictator surely we can do the same for Enver Hoxha?. Valeofruin (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We should resolve this and then discuss the rest of the article. We said that the phrase authoritarian leader would be a good compromise. Considering that I made basically the entire article (check edits from, say, 2007 and then compare) and citations went from like 5 to 52, I think I could discuss new changes and find sources for them.

So, our choices to end this debate are the following:
 * Enver Hoxha is referred to as leader (which he was) and his government positions are listed, the "head of state" part is removed.
 * Enver Hoxha is referred to as authoritarian leader, which sounds like a bad, unsubtle attempt at saying "he's a dictator" but at least has more neutral wording and then it goes on to list his positions. --Mrdie (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove head of state use leader and government positions. -My vote Valeofruin (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opining he was one of the communist dictators like: Mao, Ceausescu, Jaruzelski, Castro etc.. and of course the "king" of them all - "uncle" Joseph Stalin, therefore my vote goes to "authoritarian leader".--Jacurek (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm fine with 'authoritarian leader' though I think that's being weasely. Now, should I, or someone else, go over to the Pinochet page and change that from dictator to 'authoritarian leader'?radek (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All-or-nothing, but since we aren't using dictator we can now go onto the next part: fixing any NPOV issues with the article. --Mrdie (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

During the Albanian Cultural Revolution, saluting in the Army was abolished and ranks were almost non-existent. There was very little distinction between officers and enlisted, if anything. Does that fit the profile of an "authoritarian dictator"? -p1nkfl0yd 09:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.148.42 (talk)

Fixing NPOV issues in the article
Okay, so, what sentences and such do you feel are not neutral? Let's do it sentence-by-sentence for now. --Mrdie (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No dispute thus far.

Give it a few more days then I move we remove the dispute tag as no reason was given for it being placed. Valeofruin (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion there is lack of sufficient information on the repressions, political prisoners, political murders etc. committed by his regime in order to maintain power. This may be one of the reasons the dispute tag was placed there. Wondering if there are any Albanian editors who might help.--Jacurek (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree.

""Nako Spiru, an anti-Yugoslav member of the Party, condemned Xoxe and Xoxe condemned him. With no one coming to Spiru's defense, he viewed the situation as hopeless and that Yugoslav domination of his nation was imminent, causing him to commit suicide in November.

Xoxe was expelled from the party and on June 13, 1949 he was executed by a firing squad.

Kim Philby, a Soviet double agent working as a liaison officer between the British intelligence service and the United States Central Intelligence Agency, had leaked details of the infiltration plan to Moscow, and the security breach claimed the lives of about 300 infiltrators.

Hoxha called for a resolution which would uphold the current leadership of the Party. It was accepted, and all the delegates who had spoken out were expelled from the party and imprisoned.

“ The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women's rights.”

- Enver Hoxha, 1967[24]

Hoxha's legacy also included a complex of 750,000 one-man concrete bunkers across a country of 3 million inhabitants, to act as look-outs and gun emplacements along with chemical weapons.[28] The bunkers were built strong and mobile, with the intention that they could be easily placed by a crane or a helicopter in a previously dug hole. The types of bunkers vary from machine gun pillboxes, beach bunkers, to naval underground facilities, and even Air Force Mountain and underground bunkers. Over 700,000 pillboxes were built and around 500,000 pillboxes were reported to still be in good condition and ready to serve as shelters in case of war.[citation needed]

Hoxha's internal policies were true to Stalin's paradigm which he admired, and the personality cult developed in the 1970s organized around him by the Party also bore a striking resemblance to that of Stalin... Internally, the Sigurimi Albanian secret police made sure to replicate the repressive methods of the NKVD, MGB, KGB, and Stasi. Its activities permeated Albanian society to the extent that every third citizen had either served time in labor camps or been interrogated by Sigurimi officers[citation needed]. To eliminate dissent, the government imprisoned thousands in forced-labour camps or executed for crimes such as alleged treachery or disrupting the proletarian dictatorship. Travel abroad was forbidden after 1968 to all but those on official business. Western-style dancing was discouraged, and art was made to reflect the styles of socialist realism.[31]

In 1981, Hoxha ordered the execution of several party and government officials in a new purge. Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu was reported to have committed suicide following a further dispute within the Albanian leadership in December 1981, but it is widely believed that he was killed[citation needed]."

This is ignoring essentially the entire Religion section and a few other bits of the article. What else could be added? --Mrdie (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

O ya.....sorry I missed that.--Jacurek (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally added these things when I expanded the article a few months ago, with sources to boot. So, anything else we could edit? --Mrdie (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Albania?
I think one doesn't get the full scale of Hoxha's rule without discussing the incredible poverty of Albania and how Hoxha's policies of import substitution and autarky contributed to this--otherwise, he just reads like a garden variety "dictator with modernizing features" and I think that's probably an overly positive POV. Has this information been added and removed at some point, or is there no interest/no information concerning the economic impact a long-term head of state had on economic development? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.238.208.2 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the info a year ago. Before it there was nothing about the Albanian economy much beyond "some industry was built." He clearly modernized Albania in many ways (though it remained poor and the poorest country in Europe regardless), and I feel it has been adequately reflected in the article. Autarky did not come until the late 70's, which was already 30 years into his rule. --Mrdie (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some serious glorification of the bloody dictator here.
This is my impression regarding this article.--Jacurek (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And it is my impression that changes should be discussed here first, especially since we managed to discuss this the last time. Your edits were clearly pov (you changed "the leadership" to "his leadership" for example). If you think that he is a bloody dictator, then discuss adding stuff that shows he was with a citation, don't just change words. Furthermore, since you aren't Albanian, you seem oddly personal about this article. (You keep coming back to it and called him "the dictator" as opposed to "a dictator"). --Mrdie (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "that he was", he was a communist dictator and this article glorifies his rule.--Jacurek (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has huge problems and needs serious attention. I don't have time right now to discuss this but for example his "lidership" nonsense makes "blood shoot out of my eyes". He belongs to Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Jaruzelski, Ceauşescu "happy pack" dictators. "Leader" ! LOL.. give me a break!--Jacurek (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then show some examples here of things he's done so that we can balance out any alleged 'glorifications' in the article. --Mrdie (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to revert your changes for now, changes that were not warranted nor discussed. Then we will discuss them here. I want discussion, that is all I want. I have spent hours working on the article and do not want to see sudden blocs of information changed or even removed without at least some discussion. I want you to read up on Hoxha, read books on him, etc. Read any source on him before continuing, because I have a vested interest in Albania and its leaders. Thank you. --Mrdie (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will put the dispute template back on (please do not remove it for now) and I'm willing to hear what you have to say. Today my time is a little limited but I will be in touch with you and I will check back regularly. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am okay with the dispute template, and have asked for any internet messaging contact information on your talk page. --Mrdie (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I want you to discuss changes to the article here, then I will reply on these changes. Do this when you come back, please. --Mrdie (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigurimi
Hi Mrdie. To start lets add some information about his security forces Sigurimi. The brutality of this organization one can only be compared with Soviet NKVD or Nazi Gestapo. I will let you do it so it is more balanced, because as you can see, I have my strong opinion about this individual. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sigurimi is noted in the article: "Internally, the Sigurimi Albanian secret police made sure to replicate the repressive methods of the NKVD, MGB, KGB, and Stasi. Its activities permeated Albanian society to the extent that every third citizen had either served time in labor camps or been interrogated by Sigurimi officers[citation needed]. To eliminate dissent, the government imprisoned thousands in forced-labour camps or executed for crimes such as alleged treachery or disrupting the proletarian dictatorship. Travel abroad was forbidden after 1968 to all but those on official business. Western-style dancing was discouraged, and art was made to reflect the styles of socialist realism.[31]"

What would you say we should include? I can get plenty of information from the book A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha on the Sigurimi, and here's another source we can easily use from the same person (James S. O'Donnell) who wrote the book. --Mrdie (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just more about repressions, killings etc. and less of his quotes. I think most people do not care what Hoxha had to say. Maybe that Sigurimi has been instrumental in keeping Hoxha in power and also more details about the way this criminal organization persecuted his political opponents and the society as a whole? This is good opening line : Enver Hoxha created the most extreme totalitarian system in the communist bloc and used a secret police system modeled on the Soviet KGB to maintain his power. but it has to be modified.--Jacurek (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Would a new section called Human Rights be good? Also I disagree with removing the Hoxha quotes, because they explain Hoxha's positions on the Sino-Albanian Split and other things that must be noted considering that he wasn't just some Warsaw Pact leader like, say, Gomulka, but an ideological leader like Mao and Tito. He split the Maoist movement in 1978 to the extent that Hoxhaists and Maoists were fighting each other in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Brazil, etc. It's like totally separating Lenin from Leninism, or mentioning Tito in his article without the whole Yugoslav Self-Management concept, or Mao without his "People's War" views, etc. Look at Hoxhaism. Here's an example of a US Communist group supporting Hoxhaism, Hoxhaist pamphlets for West German and East German audiences calling on them to fight against capitalism, "Khrushchevite/Brezhnevite revisionism", and Maoism. --Mrdie (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya, Human Rights section would be great.--Jacurek (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will make one within two days, possibly today. I don't have A Coming of Age with me so I can't provide much in the way of sources, but I will do my best. --Mrdie (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I found A Coming of Age and used it to great effect to get sources and such. So, how is it? --Mrdie (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think looks very good. Thanks Mrdie.--Jacurek (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else you have an issue with on this article? --Mrdie (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will let you know if there is anything, nothing for now. Thanks again Mrdie.--Jacurek (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)