Talk:Enver Hoxha

Intro Paragraphs

I got rid of "He is criticised for a series of political repressions which included the establishment and use of forced labour camps, extrajudicial killings and executions that targeted and eliminated dissidents, a large number of which were carried out by the Sigurimi secret police." because there has been no citation dince September of 2020

Awful article

As noted, this article has nothing about his personal life.

More than half is hagiography of his achievements and would more appropriately appear in an article about the communist period history of Albania.

That said a lot (most) of 'information' in the article is laughable and quite obvious propaganda.

I think any source published before the fall of communism has to be treated with incredible scepticism. Is the Kim Il Sung wiki article based on current North Korean propaganga? I don't think so. Is the Hitler article based on 1944 Nazi propaganda? Nope. This article is however half sourced from communist era tosh and soaked with ideology.

Communist era statistics are basically completely useless, such as the ludicrous claim that syphilis was completely eliminated. Mortality 37% lower than in the rest of Europe? Yes, very believable.

Oh and Albania is responsible for China's UN seat? Rubbish.

Another piece of fantastic information sourced from something called 'Pollo and Puto, The History of Albania, p. 280.' - Albania was the world's first completely electrified country, achieving this 15 years before planned (wonderful turn of propaganda there). I guess the UK , USA and Western Europe were using gas lights in 1970.

--93.182.154.61 (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, not much is known about his personal life. You need to go through all sorts of sources (including his own memoirs, of which relevant parts in regards to this subject aren't in English) if you want to get a comprehensive look at his early life. Thus Bernd J. Fischer points out in Balkan Strongmen (p. 241), "Not much is known of his early life, expect what he himself tells us." Secondly, whatever you may think of those statistics, you're free to provide alternative statistics for comparison or sources which dispute their legitimacy. Thirdly, the electricity claim is sourced in various works. The point was that it was complete electrification, that even the most remote villages had access to it and, as Elez Biberaj notes (in a 1990 book, and Biberaj is far from being an apologist, much less a communist), Albania actually began exporting electricity to neighboring countries. I am also aware that the footnotes are rather clumsily assembled. Fourthly, Albania was the country that continuously agitated for the PRC to have a seat in the UN and was, in fact, the country which proposed the resolution to make it possible. I do plan on day to substantially expand the article. --Mrdie (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

The article hasn't nothing about the family of this communist. He had wife and sons.Agre22 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

Hoxha's Sex Life

What was Enver Hoxha's Sex life like? I heard a rumor he had multiple partners along with his wife.--172.129.211.92 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article talkpage is for discussing the article, not answering questions or engaging in debates. In any case, there were rumors that Hoxha was either bisexual or homosexual, backed up with rather spurious-sounding allegations set forth by Ilir Bulka, Hoxha's private secretary from 1973-1980 in Il Messaggero as noted in Owen Pearson's Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History: Volume III: Albania as Dictatorship and Democracy, 1945-99, p. 649. There are also other books that allege Hoxha had homosexual encounters while studying in Paris. Arshi Pipa apparently backed the rumors, and supposedly Kadare "knows" about them too (though Kadare denies ever making such claims and rebuked Pipa). Since this article lacks a "private life" section, and since such things remain rumors not really substantiated by anything, I doubt it'd be encyclopedic to include them. --Mrdie (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Autarchy

As a result of autarchy, Albania had a minimal foreign debt. This makes no sense to me. It would require equating a communist system of government, with autarchy (which I doubt holds water). Furthermore, I don't see how autarchy or communism of themselves would guarantee any particular level of foreign debt. Rob Burbidge (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's meant to say that because of autarchy the Albanians (who were almost universally seen as requiring heavy foreign aid to survive) had very little debt. You may reword it if you wish. --Mrdie (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I think that it depends on the interpretation of Autarchy. If the "self rule" applies to the state, it makes sense. I had interpreted "self rule" in the article to apply to individuals, which is closer to the current wikipedia definition of the term. I'll change to this to "economic self-sufficiency" which seems clearer. Rob Burbidge (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a sort of old discussion, but I can't help thinking that the intended word was autarky rather than autarchy, as autarky is "the quality of being self-sufficient". I'm not sure if it would be better to change the way it is now, but it would certainly be informative. ChristopherGregory (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sound file (pronounciation

Hi. The sound file containing a smaple of the pronounciation of the name is corrupt. However the link just below works just fine. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Enver Hoxha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding comments. In general, the article is very well written. However, there are some problems.

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a concise summary of the article and proportionally represent the article content in summary statements. The current lead is too short and does not represent the article content.
• There are sections of the article that lack references. Not every statement needs to be references, but there should not be whole sections of uncited material.
• All quotes, such as "enemies of the people" need to be cited. Anything that is in quotations needs a reference.
• I have been copy editing the article, mostly for punctuation and wording, but if you find any errors please feel free to revert.
• It would be helpful if there was a "Bibliography" section listing all the references used in the article.

Thanks!

• I will put this on hold to allow the editor to address the issues.

Xtzou (Talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Note which sections lack references, please. I will address current "citation needed" ones soon. --Mrdie (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. Some of the problem is that the references that are there are obscure, like "The Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies at the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania, 296." There is no way I can look anything up to verify. Also, when the footnote is "O'Donnell, p. 22.", does that mean the book under Further reading? If so, that section should be called Bibliography and list the full information like Publisher, date, etc. for all the sources used in the article.
• Another problem is reference notes in the middle of a sentence, like "Hoxha was born in Gjirokastër, a city in southern Albania that has been home to many prominent families. He was the son of a Bektashi[1] Tosk cloth merchant who traveled widely across Europe and the United States of America, and the major influence on Enver during these years was his uncle, Hysen Hoxha ([hyˈsɛn ˈhɔdʒa])." Does this mean that everthing else in that sentence and the rest of the paragraph is referenced to the reference note at the end of that paragraph?
• The article is well written and quite interesting. I would like to see this matter of the referencing clarified.

Xtzou (Talk) 13:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am currently too busy to do anything more than add references, for now. I will, however, address the issues you've pointed out. --Mrdie (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could you clarify the Further reading section and the lack of a Bibliography section. I consider the lack of a Bibliography a major flaw, as there is no way to look up your references without it. Xtzou (Talk) 19:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have tried to fix up your references but I cannot without your help. It is hard to decipher what you mean. Xtzou (Talk) 23:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance: : Fails WP:LEAD. Too many short, choppy paragraphs

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: : There are still paragraphs without any references

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Fail

I have done quite a bit of copy editing on this article. The editor has said that he does not have time to address the remaining issues, so I must fail the article. I urge that the issues be addressed and the article be renominated. Xtzou (Talk) 17:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Typical of Wikipedia

Speaks volumes that the tone and content of this entire article appears to have been dictated via the talk page by a Polish anti-communist subsequently banned for sockpuppetry. Perhaps when Wikipedia reflects anything other than the establishment, pro-market version of history it may be considered a genuine educational resource.

DublinDilettante (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Besides the "Human Rights" section I'd say he had next to no impact. I wrote about 90% of the article. I actually one day plan to significantly expand the article as well, and I'm not exactly a "pro-market" person. --Mrdie (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Human rights

The sentence "All Albanians were required to obtain permits for the ownership of cars (which did not fall under private property[73]), refrigerators and typewriters among other things." doesn't seem to belong here. The implication being that owning a car is a human right. Perhaps it might be of worth (with some more explanation) at Socialist People's Republic of Albania or Fundamentals of Marxism–Leninism, but it doesn't seem to belong in this article at all, so I am removing it. --Thehalfone (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually that sentence could be placed here, but it would be partly wrong, because you needed (and with some luck would obtain) permits for the ownership of televisions, refrigerators, washing machines, moto bikes, and typewriters, but you'd never get one to own a car. Futbollisti (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The section is POV, and I am tagging it as such. Lengthy, unattributed quotations from primary sources are not appropriate and should be removed. In addition, there needs to be the point of view of Albanian scholars writing during Hoxha's leadership about the state of human rights in the country.SadSwanSong (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine that'd be fairly difficult to do, either because it'd be in the Albanian language only or because they'd be contained in United Nations archives or other, more obscure sources. As it stands I don't think the article requires such a big section on the subject (though it obviously requires a mention) since this is meant to be a biography of Hoxha, not an analysis of his country. As noted I have plans to fully revise the article so it can become much more acceptable as a biography. --Mrdie (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Human rights should not be a big section on a biography of Hoxha? I cannot understand that reasoning. The bulk of this article must surely focus on his political career, and one of the biggest points to be said of his political career is that he used "iron" methods. So no, please don't reduce this section. Rather, EXPAND it.Nojamus (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Torture methods, reminisces of persons who were imprisoned for political reasons, and other things belong in other articles (e.g. ones about Albania during the socialist period.) The subject does deserve mention in the article, of course, but focused on the fact that in the West Hoxha was often criticized in this area. You wouldn't include detailed information on how Jews were gassed in the Hitler article alongside "Holocaust survivor recalled..." stuff, would you? I think you'd agree those details belong in other articles. --Ismail (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Enver Hoxha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120326193809/http://www.albanian.com/v4/showthread.php?t=30610 to http://www.albanian.com/v4/showthread.php?t=30610

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

How come this article doesn't have a section dedicated to his legacy or contemporary assessments of his rule? Don't we always have something like that for articles about important historical figures? Charles Essie (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent Category addition

I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past. Is there a reliable source conveying that persecution was a result of atheism, rather than the result of a dictator or communist regime trying to suppress religion? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Kampuchea, China, North Korea, Nationalist Albania, Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact Countries were state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. The Category:Persecution by atheists it is includes articles of violence or persecution carried out by atheists or atheist goverments against adherents of religions. Prevent people from freedom of worship and to impose on them that they are atheists or non-religious, burning and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept is persecuted (In the case of the oppressed was an atheist), then, is persecuted by the atheists.--Jobas (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that the religious were persecuted, and you are correct that some of those countries assumed a position of state atheism. But you are confusing the persecution conducted by communists and totalitarian dictators as "persecution by atheists", which is nonsensical. That makes as much sense as adding "Category: Persecution by people with black hair". According to the cited sources in this article, the persecution was propagated by the communists and fascists upon the religious (and religious institutions) because the regime didn't want to compete with religions for influence over the populace. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods; there is no "persecution" component to it. The persecution comes from the communist regime and from totalitarian dictators. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The persecution was led by people who identified themselves as atheists, They were athiest outspoked, Their actions were an attempt to remove religions of these communities through the policy of persecuting the religions and their followers and by followers of imposing a policy of atheism, through the so-called atheistic countries. If not athiest then persecuted by whom? Christians?.--Jobas (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You already asked this, and I already answered you. The persecution, according to the sources, were by the polity in control at the time. The people may have identified themselves as atheists, and males, and left-handed, and fond of bird-watching, but the persecution (and also the establishment of state-sponsored stance of atheism) was a product of the communist or fascist government. See the difference? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The source cited they imposing a policy of atheism in not peacful way, and the "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.", and forceful tactics to promote atheism. These acts it called persecution that done by self identified atheists, They ban on religion and they killed and tortured followers of different religions. And they tried to impose atheism in various ways on the population? What you called killing people for their faith and harassment them and an attempt to impose atheism officially in all ways? Persecuted? and by whom?--Jobas (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to? I don't see that quotation in the article. You ask "persecuted by whom?" By Hoxha, according to the sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

impose atheism in various ways on the population from preventing worship and closing churches and torture people for practice it.? Were are taling about State atheism as states and goverments who run official policy of anti-clericalism and Anti-religious and its aim to and promoting state atheism.

Enver Hoxha was an Atheist activists, during his regiem State atheism became official policy, and Albania was declared the world's first atheist state. His Party focused on atheist education in schools. This tactic was effective, primarily due to the high birthrate policy encouraged after the war. During holy periods such as Lent and Ramadan many forbidden foods (dairy products, meat, etc.) were distributed in schools and factories, and people who refused to eat those foods were denounced. Starting on 6 February 1967, the Party began a new offensive against religion. --Jobas (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you see my question? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Will all this act and his party act are called Persecution. I saw what the article cited, These acts are classified as acts of persecution. He goverment did declare as State atheism and did persecuted Muslim and Christians.--Jobas (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But what we're talking about is your miscategorization of those actions as "persecution by atheists", which is not only unsourced, but also doesn't make any sense. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What not sourced, That Enver Hoxha was an atheist, well many source can show that, That his goverment did declared as State atheism, well many source show that, or that he tried to promoted atheism, and persecuted Muslim and Christians, well many source show that. What doesn't make any sense, That these acts are persecution and done by an atheist state, and an atheist leader who tried to promoted atheism in his country by persecuted Muslim and Christians.?.--Jobas (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I never said that Hoxha wasn't an atheist. I never said that his government didn't take a stance of state atheism. I never said he didn't persecute various religious people. But we're talking about is your miscategorization of those actions as "persecution by atheists", which is not only unsourced, but also doesn't make any sense. You are conducting WP:SYNTH, which is against Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

So his was an athiest, he persecute various religious people, his government take a stance of state atheism and promoted atheism by force, where is the part don't make any sense. You are against Wikipedia policy, trying to remove "persecution by atheists" becouse you don't like.--Jobas (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll hold off on replying further until you've provided a reliable source for this article which conveys specifically "persecuted by atheists", rather than persecuted by communists or totalitarian regimes. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This regime was an atheist regime as well, The relgious persecution for the various religious people was part of the anti religious and atheist policy of the regime, I already show you source here and other articles : Representations of Place: Albania, Derek R. Hall, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 165, No. 2, The Changing Meaning of Place in Post-Socialist Eastern Europe: Commodification, Perception and Environment (Jul., 1999), pp. 161–172, Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers).

Vickers, Miranda; Pettifer, James (2000), Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity, NYU Press, pp. 99,109, ISBN 081478805X.

regard, Just becouse you don't like the fact that Hoxha regime was also an atheist regime dosent mean that "persecution by atheists" don't fit here, also "persecution by communist" is fiting here since the regime was communist too, i didn't denay that in any place but the regime was offically an State atheism too.--Jobas (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge also instigated a purge of religion during the Cambodian Genocide, when all religious practices were forbidden and Buddhist monasteries were closed. (source: Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Cambodia History; accessed 10 November 2013),

Albania under Enver Hoxha became, in 1967, the first formally declared atheist state (source: Majeska, George P. (1976). "Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Review." The Slavic and East European Journal. 20(2). pp. 204–206.), Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania. and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." (source: Elsie, R. (2000). A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture. New York: NYU Press. p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-2214-8.)

Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheis to intensify the persecution. (source: Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340)

After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China. (source: Rowan Callick; Party Time – Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112), (source: "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.)

You still keep ignore sources, There been persecution that done by an atheist states, and atheist leaders. So you like or not that dose not changed facts of Persecution by atheist states and leaders.--Jobas (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jobas. That is all very interesting. Have you located a reliable source which says people were "Persecuted by atheists", rather than at the hands of a communist regime or a totalitarian state? I don't see it in any of the sources you just mentioned. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Atheists don't close churches, arrest priests or outlaw religion -- blame for that oppression is on the dictators and the totalitarian states. The category template is misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The name of category is Persecuted by atheists, It mean to include act of Persecution that done by atheist or self identified atheists, or atheist goverment and states, this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me, because it is not the place for that argue. The Category is about acts of Persecution that done by atheists, which I already provided reliable source about the Persecution acts, and the self identified atheists leaders as Pol Pot and Enver Hoxha and that these dictators and the ″totalitarian″ states were officaly atheist state (so how the Category don't fit here)‎. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".

The Russian Orthodox Church, for centuries the strongest of all Orthodox Churches, was suppressed by Russia's atheists (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494).

In 1999, the Communist Party launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in Tibet, saying intensifying propaganda on atheism is "especially important for Tibet because atheism plays an extremely important role in promoting economic construction, social advancement and socialist spiritual civilization in the region". (source: China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet; BBC; January 12, 1999)

I dont see in this source the word totalitarian, but i'm see atheists, don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source--Jobas (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me --Jobas

It may not be important to you, but it is important for our readers. When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.

Your Blainey quotes say three things. (1) Blainey says some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) Blainey also says that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) Blainey says all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543.

Perhaps this quote about people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, would be helpful to your understanding: "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." The blame for that lies with "dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism", or totalitarianism, etc. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Pgs 315-316)

don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source --Jobas

Anybody can be a reliable source, and any source can be deemed non-reliable or inaccurate, depending on the specific content being sourced. You'll have to be specific about what you would like to source to Blainey in a Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This category "Persecution by atheists", not category "Persecution because of atheism", The category is about act of persecution committed by atheists noting more nothing less, dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists, the category dosen't argue the reason of the persecution. But still the soruces show that the Atheist states as Soviet and ect try to establish atheism throughout society by force and persecution, and creating atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists to help the goverment to promoted atheism. So how an atheist state and atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists who played role in persecution people of religion, and tried to force and promoted atheism dont fit under category "Persecution by atheists"

You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists, I gave the source of Geoffrey Blainey, it was very clear, "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity" and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong″.

Well Richard Dawkins is not historian, Under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." (source: Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival, by Christopher Marsh, page 47. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.) and (source: Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History, by Dilip Hiro. Penguin, 2009.) which is an act of Persecution, This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school. (source: Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, translation from Russian, Stephen Schmidt, S.J., transcribed P. Legrand, page 3). --Jobas (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.

dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists --Jobas

This is false. Please provide the exact citation for this. All I see are mentions of people who commited persecution, and who also happen to be atheists.

You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists --Jobas

No, I did not. I asked you to show me reliable sources which convey "Persecution done by atheists", not persecution by people who also happen to be atheists, which would be an uninformative and misleading category.

there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." --Jobas

That is a nonsensical statement; and I checked your source - it doesn't say that. Please read and understand the sources you cite.

Well Richard Dawkins is not historian... --Jobas

I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Please explain in more detail?

I would still like to see a reliable source which says "Persecution by atheists". Xenophrenic (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many categories, combining two or more attributes, that aren't correlated. For example Category:LGBT musicians from Canada . Clearly readers aren't likely to be misled into thinking that any one of those things is the cause and any other the effect. Given that the persecuted are being targeted for religious reasons, rather than political, it seems logical to focus on the atheism, rather than the communism. Either way, all that is necessary is that reliable sources confirm that there was persecution by an atheist. Steve Lowther (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

anti-Hoxha bias

This article is strongly bias against the subject, including a lot of Cold War-era propaganda. Most problematically, it takes the subjective stance that Hoxha's religious policy was a bad thing. He managed to stamp out anachronistic religious sectarianism and to the best of his ability removed the Abrahamic cults from public life. To say that was a bad thing, citing "human rights", is to actively favour reaction. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't that he "stamp[ed] out anachronistic religious sectarianism" (which wasn't actually a problem in the Albania of 1967), but that Albania's government prohibited religion altogether, including private worship. That certainly does go against the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among other documents that could be cited. --Ismail (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

With documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we have to ask, who wrote it and for what reason? It was primarily driven by the Western Allies after World War II who adhered to liberalism; the political ideology of the bourgeoisie.

The Soviet Union, at the time representing Marxist-Leninism, the political ideology of the proletariat, did not sign it. So it seems strange to judge other Marxist-Leninist governments by an inherently liberal document. Did Hoxha's Albania ever become a signatory to it? If not they cannot technically be in violation of rules they never claimed to endorse.

Both Christianity and Islam made their way into what is now Albania, representing at different stages of history imperial powers (Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire), by what would be considered by violations of "human rights" (including private views; paganism, atheism, merely having an opinion which strays outside of Abrahamism). So they can hardly cry "human rights" because Hoxha suppressed them in the same manner. Claíomh Solais (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the USSR or Albania were signatories (although the USSR's issues with the document weren't over religion), "The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Albanian Government has violated and continues to violate international norms concerning the freedom of religion, as enunciated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1981 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief." (Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee. Human Rights in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania. 1990. p. 99.) Neither document is legally binding, but it is nonetheless expected for UN members to adhere to them, and it should be fairly easy to argue that, by Wikipedia standards, "According to [sources], Albania under Enver Hoxha violated the rights of religious believers" or some similar phrasing can be legitimately used.

Also, neither the Roman Empire nor the Ottoman Empire existed in 1967. Clergy who had collaborated with the fascist occupiers had been sentenced two decades earlier. An anti-communist who visited Albania a few years before the campaign against religion wrote, "The situation of the church in Albania seems to be hopeless." (Harry Hamm, Albania—China's Beachhead in Europe. 1963. p. 56.) The ban on religion hurt ordinary believers as well as the (at this point already politically impotent) clergy.

Konstantin Chernenko, one of many leaders Hoxha denigrated as a "revisionist," summarized the Marxist-Leninist view toward religion: "To our Party, the struggle against religious prejudices has always been an ideological struggle of a scientific, materialist world view against an antiscientific, religious one. We are waging this struggle only by means of persuasion and education. The Communist Party has always held that all attempts to make believers give up their convictions by coercive measures are not only futile, but also harmful, that atheism can be spread, not through prohibiting religion, but by means of consistent persuasion, by drawing believers into an active social life. After all, you can't order a man to think scientifically." (Human Rights in Soviet Society. 1981. pp. 65-70.) --Ismail (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Enver Hoxha. 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/20040803214237/http://www.albanian.com/main/history/hoxha.html to http://www.albanian.com/main/history/hoxha.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Relations with the Soviet Union

'The entire population' were assembled (in Tirana's largest square) - of the city, the country or what? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I spotted that too. Is it a recent edit? Sounds dubious to me or at the very least, ambiguous. Bennycat (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems legit. The reference to this staged spontaneous grief outpouring is from a book called “The Last Days of Stalin” by Yale University Press. Berehinia (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Enver Hoxha (portrait).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Enver Hoxha1971.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Enverhoxha party congress1971.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Excessive length

At more than 10,000 words in its present, partially edited form, this article remains grossly bloated – much more detailed than its relatively minor historical subject merits.

I attempted to copy-edit the text, but got only about halfway through (4,000 words as edited).

I hope that some other disinterested (not uninterested) editor versed in Eastern European and Soviet history, and a native speaker of English, will take on a total rewrite of the article, holding its entire length to 2,000 to 3,000 words, as would be appropriate for English Wikipedia.

Barring that, the article should be nominated for deletion.

I've had enough! – Sca (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"Dictator" or "revolutionary" in lead sentence?

The long standing version of the lead sentence of this article described Hoxha as "an Albanian communist revolutionary and statesman who served as the First Secretary of the Party of Labour of Albania, from 1941 until his death in 1985." Recently some have been swapping "revolutionary" for "dictator", such as with this edit. I believe labeling him both a dictator and statesman is redundant and POV.

It should be noted that the lead sentences of the Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong articles are similar to the long standing version of this article, with Stalin being described as "a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet political leader who governed the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953," and Mao "a Chinese communist revolutionary who was the founding father of the People's Republic of China, which he ruled as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from the establishment of the PRC in 1949 until his death in 1976." Note the absense of highly POV terms like "dictator or "totalitarian". While some historians and commentators have described them as such, the apparent consensus is to omit such language from the lead, ostensibly in order to adhere to WP:NPOV.

Using both of these articles as examples, I think the long standing version of this article should be restored, and POV language removed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Enver Hoxha (portret).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So... when did he become First Secretary?

Some sentences say 1941 others say 1943. Which is it? Erinius (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

According to the official History of the Party of Labour of Albania (1982 edition), when the party was founded in 1941 a "Central Committee (Provisional) composed of seven members was elected to lead the Party. Enver Hoxha was charged with heading it, though no secretary was appointed." Later the book states that in March 1943 a First National Conference of the party was held which elected Hoxha as the party's General Secretary. The book later states that the title of General Secretary was replaced in favor of First Secretary as a result of a decision of a plenary meeting of the party's Central Committee on July 12, 1954. --Ismail (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I see, so he was in charge of the party from the beginning, but the First Secretary position was only created later. Thanks Erinius (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• HoxhaAndAlbanians.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

First sentence edit in the lead section

I've reverted this removal of content from the first sentence in the lead section. This material (1) is very well cited (Cambridge Univ. Press-published book) and (2) seems to accurately describe the content that follows at a high level (which is the function of a lead section). What's the problem with this? Pinging FierakuiVërtet and Thenightaway. Neutrality^talk 04:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The source for the namesake is not trustworthy

The claim that Enver Pasha is the namesake of Enver Hoxha is only supported by a source that imitates the popular Vox_(website). It does not cite sources, it does not claim to dissipate academic knowledge. The expertise and reliability of the author of that piece, Ibrahim Resid, are dubious at best because no information other than his name is provided. It might as well be an alias.

The source, tr:Albayrak_Medya_Grubu, Albayrak_Group is known to have close ties with the current ruling party, AKP. Their editorial independence is questionable.

Until a better source is presented, I will remove that piece of information.

Cheers! 78c1HGxb6d (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@78c1HGxb6d: I totally agree with you! FierakuiVërtet (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I removed the information as discussed here. 78c1HGxb6d (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

1941 or 1943?

In the article lead, it states that Hoxha became First Secretary of the Party of Labour in 1943, but in the infobox it says he became First Secretary in 1941 at it's creation. Which one is correct? 1bcdbackup (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Debates on Hoxha’s ideology

Enver Hoxha’s ideology has always been Marxism above nationalism. Nationalism was more of a tool utilized to repress the populace by giving them a veneer of perceived sense of identity, but in actuality Hoxha’s regime was firstly a Marxist one, not a nationalist one. He fought the nationalists during world war 2 and won over them after the Germans left Albania in 1944. Also if Hoxha were truly a nationalist he wouldn’t have discriminated against people’s personal religious choices or the religious clergy.

In addition, Enver Hoxha wasn’t a nationalist in the traditional sense because he also gave back Kosovo to Yugoslavia which contained an ethnic Albanian majority and largely ignored their plight for several decades. He also wrote books and articles rejecting ethnic chauvinism.Saturnalia04 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Saturnalia04 Several reliable sources describe him as a nationalist. Unless you can provide sources that say otherwise, there is nothing to debate here. Personal opinions about his actions regarding religion, the beys and bayraktars, or Kosovo are not relevant to this discussion.

Besides, chauvinism is not necessarily the same as nationalism, as a simple internet search will show. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The opinion of a German analyst does not necessarily translate to Hoxha’s own personal convictions or ideologies.

Much of Hoxha’s works is easily accessible online, notably his internationalist (not nationalist) stance on Greece.

The best place to source is from Hoxha himself, who expressed no genuine nationalist sentiment. A collection of his works (primary sources) can be located here.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works-index.htm

Hoxha held no pan-Albanian nationalist (key word) convictions. His writings and worldviews come from a class-oriented perspective rooted around Marxism and Stalinism, not nationalism, which he denounced as reactionary. The “nationalism” he professed held no basis in the nation’s traditions or customs. Saturnalia04 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Saturnalia04 Keep in mind that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources and avoids using primary sources, such as the works of Hoxha. This is because primary sources, written by individuals directly involved, are subject to interpretation and thus can lead to original research. To accurately assess the situation, a historian is needed to critically evaluate all aspects of the matter. So you must provide a reliable secondary source to support your conclusions about Hoxha.

Besides, in his works, Hoxha always tried to protect his reputation (of a Stalinist communist) after being labeled a "nationalist" by other socialist states. As such, citing his works is likely not the most effective method to determine the extent of his nationalism. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Saturnalia04 Instead of stating his political views, the first line of the lead section should focus on his profession. If we choose to include his political views, we should also mention that he was a nationalist as well as a Stalinist communist. Thus it would be: Enver Hoxha was a nationalist, communist Albanian politician... However this may not be clear to the reader. I believe this is why the Italian encyclopedia Treccani refers to Hoxha and Ceaușescu just as uomo politico (politician man) in the very first word of their respective pages. Moreover, his adherence to Marxism-Leninism is already mentioned later in the lead section. So what are you trying to do besides giving him a etiquette? FierakuiVërtet (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Saturnalia04 Okay, actually Treccani uses the expression uomo politico for many politicians of that time. However, this is still proof that labels given in the very first line of the article may not be adequate to describe these politicians. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If Hoxha is a mere politician, it must be noted that he was a dictator as well, if we negate any mention of his ideology stances. He was accurately described as one by various sources as a dictator Saturnalia04 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Saturnalia04 He was undoubtedly a dictator. I don't support this inclusion in the very first lines, but if you do add it, I will not object. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Dictator

This seems to be a reasonable sourced description of him. Cherry picked examples of other leaders are not a good reason to remove it here, especially when at least one of those articles, Stalin, does in fact use the description dictator in the lead 37.245.244.108 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not an argument. As I said, not even Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il etc. are labeled "dictators" in the lead, as this is a non-neutral and loaded language. Article leads about same topics (communist statesmen in this case) have to be consistent. Either Stalin, Mao, the Kims etc. have to all be described as dictators in the the lead of their respective articles or Hoxha should not be too. Because the first one practically won't happen because of many reasons, we have to stick to the already established pattern. As for "dictator" being present in the lead of the page about Stalin, it's not right in the first sentence so it is not a problem per se. It's problematic when this label is present in the very first sentence of a lead. GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 20:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Stalin is named as a dictator in the lead - "he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s." Your WP:CONSISTENCY link says nothing that supports the claim that the same topics have to be consistent in this respect - it says that article titles should be consistent and that articles should be consistent within themselvwes - nothing like the argument you are trying to make here which is basically All toads are frogs and therefore all frogs are toads" 2.49.40.106 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"As for "dictator" being present in the lead of the page about Stalin, it's not right in the first sentence so it is not a problem per se. It's problematic when this label is present in the very first sentence of a lead". Did you even read what I wrote? GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Also how many IPs are you abusing lol GreatLeader1945 ^TALK 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I read what you wrote but you're changing your argument as you go along. Originally you were worried about the lead, now you're backtracking and claiming to be worried about the first sentence.

Regardless there are extensive reliable sources that call Hoxha a dictator, and that's the currently established version. If you want to have that changed you need to get collaborative input and establish a new consensus. Until then the WP:QUO version should stand.

I've been editing on mobile and the IP changes as I move around - I've made no attempt to pretend the different IPs are different editors. 2.49.40.106 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)