Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Untitled

"Hoxha tapped..." should surely read "Hoxha tipped...", since "tap" does not have a relevant meaning in English.80.60.103.23 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"tapped" is a word in English that means selected by a superior for a project. Did Hoxha give someone special treatment for some task? 104.169.36.35 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Religion in the infobox

^{(Moved here from my talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)}

Hello, Guy Macon.

So I've seen you've edited out for a second time the line on religion of the infobox. You claim that absence of religion is not one. I agree. The people who wrote the article agree. That's why it clearly states Religion: NONE. and also adds that state atheism was enforced. Is it claiming that atheism is a religion? No, because it says Religion: NONE. If it said "Religion: atheism", then I would agree. But it doesn't. It also provides a reference supporting that statement.

Furthermore, suppose we decide to remove the line on religion of the infobox. Then how would people know state atheism was enforced? What if they thought we just don't know what Albania's stance on religion was?

I hope you understand now the reasons why I reverted your editions.

--WBritten (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Furthermore, suppose we decide to remove the line on religion of the infobox. Then how would people know state atheism was enforced? What if they thought we just don't know what Albania's stance on religion was?", they are supposed to find that out by reading the article. Reading the article, I see no citation that shows the current Albanian government's position on religion since the Constitution of Albania was ratified in 1998, so your edit fails WP:V. You appear to know a lot about Albania, so please edit the article (the body of the article, not the infobox) with citations that establish the current Albanian government's position on state religions and freedom of religion.

Re: "You claim that absence of religion is not one", in the edit you reverted[1] I made no such claim. I claimed that there is a clear consensus against your edits as shown at the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. If you think the admin's closing comments did not accurately reflect consensus, I suggest contacting him on his talk page and asking him to reconsider the evidence. Don't forget that consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

Consensus has been established for removing the parameter. Any further attempts to re-insert it through reverts will result in a discussion at WP:ANI. You are, of course free to go to ANI yourself if you think that my behavior has been improper. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I want to underline that the PSR of Albania existed from 1948-1992. Now Albania is a liberal democracy, it's not a socialist country anymore. There is obviously no information then about the Constitution of 1998. The current stance on religion of Albania is different than that of the PSR of Albania. To begin with, they do not enforce state atheism. My edit does not fail WP:V, because the Constitution of 1998 belongs to another article, namely, Albania. In that article there's information about the current government's position on state religions.

Second, What is then the purpose of infoboxes? If you are supposed to read the article to find out any information, why have an infobox with the most important facts? The fact that Albania was an atheist state isn't mentioned until the "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" section.

Third, in the first edit you made removing the line on religion, you quoted Penn Jillette. He said something alone the lines, "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". I think the meaning of that quote is to stress that atheism is not a religion.

Fourth, the consensus against my edit was agreed upon in "Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion". The PSR of Albania was not an individual, it was a whole country, which had a very specific political stance on religion. An individual can't be state atheist. That consensus does not apply here, because it is important to underline that the PSR of Albania had no official religion, and even further, was state atheist.

Fifth, I will go to ANI to discuss this issue. --WBritten (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies about confusing the PSR of Albania with modern Albania. I just finished removing the parameter from roughly 600 articles, and while I did skim each of them and sometimes searched for words like "religion" or "atheism", I missed that. Sorry for the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the article, and included a mention of state atheism in the first paragraph. I hope this solves the problem. --WBritten (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoxhaism should be removed from government

For one, the term "Hoxhaism" carries little meaning to the average reader. Juche was removed from North Korea for the same reason. Hoxhaism is still a form of Marxism-Leninism, and the term "Marxism-Leninism" may carry some meaning to the average reader.Holden3172 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Holden3172

I agree. There's no "Hoxhaist" form of government. The government structure and elections in Albania weren't much different from Hungary, Romania and similar countries. --Ismail (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Cultural and Ideological Revolution - tagged

Only a couple of sentences are referenced - the first three paragraphs are not. Also, this section is linked to the article on China's Cultural Revolution, where it is also tagged for in-line citations. This needs to be addressed. December 2018 104.169.36.35 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

military

the long series of photos of military vehicles is inappropriate. Other states (including much more warlike ones) do not have such items in the general article about the country.2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:6319:1E5E:D49F:61A6 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Government

@ErickTheMerrick and BlueRobot116:

1. "Whenever a country is totalitarian, it is shown as such on the government infobox"... WHy? It is not a form of government.
2. "Hoxhaism is a distinct ideology". Wrong, Hoxhaism is a Western term used by commentators to describe Enver Hoxha's interpretation of Marxism-Leninism. Neither the Party of Labour of Albania nor Enver Hoxha actually used that term.

These are obvious questions, and the fact that you, ErickTheMerrick, revert these (and countless other) attempts at correcting the infobox is highly problematic! --TheUzbek (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Because it’s a form of governance. It is how the state was governed, with totalitarian control exerted Enver Hoxha.
2. You could alternatively use Stalinist as he was Stalinist, but I think it would be better to use Hoxhaist.

ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• exerted by Enver Hoxha. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1. That is wrong: some interpret totalitarianism as a form of government, but others use it to describe the "process" of dictatorship (and there are too many interpretations to count). We can also not forget that the term "totalitarianism" is extremely controversial. Moreover, it is an extremely vague term that should be replaced by the more specific communist state.
2. "You could alternatively use Stalinist as he was Stalinist, but I think it would be better to use Hoxhaist". Stalinism was never, either, an official ideology and never proclaimed by the CPSU under Stalin. They were committed to Marxism-Leninism.
3. Everything should simply be replaced by "Communist state".
4. Hoxha was not the "form of government" of Albania. Albania was a communist state that was, like every other communist state, organised on the lines of a unified state apparatus in which the highest state organ of power held unified power of the state. And the highest state organ of power was under the complete control of the communist party through its two-thirds majority in it. This is the formal communist system, and totalitarianism doesn't anything about this (the Nazies did not have this system, for example).
5. Vague, very vague stuff.

TheUzbek (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1. It is listed as such on pages like Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Fascist Italy. Also, not all communist states were totalitarian. Burkina Faso under Thomas Sakkara for example, may have been authoritarian, but not totalitarian.
2. It doesn't matter if it was the official ideology or not. If it did, North Korea and other dictatorships today would be listed as democratic because they officially say they are and all “communist states” (an oxymoron) would listed as state capitalist dictatorships as none of them were actually socialist (with workers controlling the means of production).
3. I actually really agree with you here, socialist state is vague and why is there even a communist states page if we aren’t gonna use it? It lays out how these government were run. Someone made a very good agreement for this on the East Germany talk page.
4. You could make the argument not to include Hoxhaism, but totalitarianism should be there.
5. Please explain what you meant here.

ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear

1. I have nothing against that the article, somewhere, describe states as totalitarian or whatever. But the least controversial modifier should be chosen, and that is communist state.
2. What?! North Korea and Albania are categorized as communist states by most serious scholars and academics in the world. What are you on? It also helps that these states themselves agree, which makes it a neutral designation...
3. "socialist state" was a term used by communist states to designate their historical evolution (ala historical materialism). That is why all these states also categorized themselves as people's democratic states at one point (they all "advanced" to socialism by the 1970s). Laoas, for example, is not officially a socialist state, but a people's democratic state (a historical materialist stage that is less advanced than socialism).
4. Hoxhaism; its a designation pushed by others and not by the state itself. Its a designation the state itself doesn't even agrees on exists. At last, its a designation to describe the peculiar ideological development of the communist party under Hoxha, but its a scholarly designation that doesn't mean anything politically and has nothing to do with "form of government".
5. Totalitarianism is a vague term. The article on China does not describe it as totalitarian even if countless of scholars, politicians and liberals do. Its also an extremely political designation; from a liberal perspective, most modern non-liberal experiments end up as totalitarianism. But what annoys me (and most scholars critical of it) is its vagueness. How can, for example, Tito's Yugoslavia and Hoxha's Albania be described as totalitarian? Most scholars define Yugoslavia as soft authoritarianism, but many define it as totaltarian simply because it was a one-party state. Which can gets us to the crux of the question? What in god's name does totalitarian mean other than very bad and very evil? Its probably one of the vaguest scholarly terms out there.
6. Democracy means rule of the people. It is a vague term. Those introducing what we now consider democracy in the United States argued that elections were against democracy. Until the American and French Revolutions democracy was synonymous with the lot and elections with aristocracy. Democracy is also an exceedingly vague term. That is why smart people specifically refer to liberal democracy.

TheUzbek (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1. I agree.
2. From the Communist society Wikipedia page: “A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless”. Under Communism, there is no state.
3. Then they should be marked as so.
4. It doesn't matter whether the state agree with it, it matters if its true.
5. Like all language, it’s up to interpretation and societal and intellectual opinion. I would say Yugoslavia was authoritarian, but a one-party state is a totalitarian characteristic. That doesn't make it totalitarian, just a characteristic of it is. I would also argue the same with China, it has some totalitarian characteristics, but it falls short of actually being totalitarian.
6. Yeah, I agree and know this.

ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much whether you consider PSR Albania to be described as totalitarian or not. At the very least, Wikipedia should provide factual information. PSR Albania was led by a Marxist-Leninist party and was a socialist republic; not many people would dispute that. However, labeling it as "totalitarian" is not constructive, as it does not help readers understand how Albania operated. Furthermore, the nature of such labels is contentious, and many Albanians who lived through socialism would contest that designation.

As for "Hoxhaist," it is not a unique ideology but rather an affirmation of orthodox Marxism-Leninism as practiced by the USSR before Stalin's death, also known as anti-revisionism. The largest anti-revisionist trend within Marxism-Leninism is Maoism. A split occurred within the anti-revisionist movement after Hoxha denounced Mao as a revisionist. Following this, some anti-revisionist parties aligned themselves with the Albanian line. This is where the "Hoxhaist" label is most useful: to distinguish anti-revisionist parties that follow Hoxha's line in the split. However, it is not a particularly useful marker for understanding how Albania's government functioned. BlueRobot116 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The use of Totalitarianism is useful when the system of governance is totalitarian. This is the case with the Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and North Korea. Why would it not apply here? I've added sources to prove this. I'm sure there are people who lived in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy who contest that they were totalitarian. But we have still labeled them as totalitarian, because most academics and historians agree that they were. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

We are not saying you cannot write somewhere that it is totalitarian. But if you can short down "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic

under a totalitarian Hoxhaist dictatorship" to "Communist state" why wouldn't you do it? Are you saying that communist states are not totalitarian? Are you saying any communist states are not Marxist-Leninist? Are you saying any communist state is not a one-party state? are you saying any communist state is not a republic?

Of course you are not. Call them what they are: Communist state. Two words instead twelve! TheUzbek (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess that would work. Though not all communist states were totalitarian. Again, my example of Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara and the RSFSR under Lenin would be examples of "Communist" states that weren't totalitarian. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't agree with designating them as totalitarian either but I can't make any edits there. BlueRobot116 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

We agree, but you are wrong on revisionism.

Anti-revisionists accuse certain communists of revising the fundamental tenants of Marxism-Leninism. This they don't like. Surprisingly, the Communist Party of China still accuses the Soviet Union of having made revisionist mistakes in claiming that it had established a socialist state of the whole people.

As for socialist republic, Albania was a people's democratic state until 1976 and a socialist state from then on... But the form of government remained the same. These states are communist states. TheUzbek (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

--TheUzbek (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@ErickTheMerrick and BlueRobot116: That Lenin is not totalitarian and that you, BlueRobot116, believe these states are not totalitarian have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. For example, I am pretty sure you know that several academic and reliable sources accuse Lenin of totalitarianism, ErickTheMerrick. The point is to find the most correct, neutral, and reliable description of these states. The current wording, "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian Hoxhaist dictatorship," is not serious. What serious scholar gives this definition? They use one overarching concept to describe them, not eight. Communist states is the overarching term that can encapsulate all of them. --TheUzbek (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheodoresTomfooleries: As indicated in this discussion and elsewhere on this page, this characterization is disputed. Please don't add it without consensus for its inclusion, per WP:ONUS. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to accept an alternative simplification on this model as a compromise: Unitary Marxist-Leninist socialist republic. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The same applies for the Czechoslovakia article, with the inclusion of "Federal" for the appropriate period as well. @Nikkimaria TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not a workable approach - see MOS:IBP, MOS:SOB, and TheUzbek's comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Then no consensus was reached, and thus I will continue to restore the article's government as-is until it is reached. I have seen no convincing argument whatsoever to suggest or call for its oversimplification.

If you have concerns with the way similar information is presented in other articles (like Polish People's Republic, Hungarian People's Republic, etc.), I suggest you also start talk pages and begin edits there. Otherwise, I do not see a reason why the opinion of two people should somehow go against what has proven to be a perfectly fine system which is in line with nearly all other articles like the PSR Albania. (It's an essay: not a policy.)

TheUzbek's comments are not compelling in the slightest either and boil down to "Albania considered itself a People's Democratic State, not a socialist state, so we can't characterize it as a socialist republic: thus it must be completely simplified to Communist state".

I was perfectly comfortable (though disappointed) with the exclusion of totalitarianism from the infobox, as well as a responsible simplification of the government form, which I did in-fact supply to you. The furthest I would be willing to go is a simplification to Unitary Marxist-Leninist state. Otherwise, I will not accept any further simplifications or omissions. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Likewise, if you do not intend to open up discussions on other articles, I am more than willing to do it for you. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The responsibility for achieving consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content, per WP:ONUS; you should not edit-war to restore this until you have achieved that. You're welcome to not be convinced by others' arguments, but the same goes the other way. The existence of other articles with issues does not mean this article should have them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

OTHERCONTENT is an essay and not an official policy on Wikipedia.

As I also said: if you have concerns about the way similar information is presented in similar articles like the one I mentioned, I suggest you start a discussion and begin edits there. Otherwise, I am more than willing to find out what other editors feel about this :)

A problem on one infobox, after all, is certain to be a problem on many. We should resolve that, don't you think? TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

That is quite wrong. My arguement is simple. The scholarly term for these states are "communist state". Read Stephen White, Archie Brown, Robert Service et cetra. This is my main arguement.

My second arguement is that "socialist state" as used by these states themselves does not denote a form of government. The form of government of these statez were established prior to them becoming socialist states. Wikipedia does not currently have an article on what a socialist state is.

The arguements you come up with are completely vague. You just complain about other peoples reasoning without formulating a coherent view for youre opinion. There are no scholars that define Albania (or any other communist state) as "Unitary Marxist-Leninist state". This is plain and simple original research... TheUzbek (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

---

People's Socialist Republic of Albania → Communist Albania – This state had so many names so per WP:COMMONNAME, it would be best to shorten it like Pahlavi Iran and Ba'athist Iraq. 174.93.39.93 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No, if you want to use the name "Hoxhaist Albania" it should only refer to the period when Hoxha was in power. This is clearly not the case with the former People's Socialist Republic of Albania, as it includes the whole period from the Party's creation into the regimes fall. Hoxha died in 1985 and was barely politically active during the last years of his life due to his illnes.

Baathism was a certain ideology and Pahlavis were a dynasty.

Renaming it to Hoxhaist Albania would give the perception that Hoxha was the only man in power or that his ideals were until the end of the Socialist rule, which is again not our case since we know during the end of the republic they started liberalising again step by step. Pilaf me Kos (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Communist Albania is an option. TheUzbek (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Good thinking. Name changed. 174.93.39.93 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Τhe Albanian regime was a socialist people's republic, not a communist people's republic. There is a difference. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Firstly I agree with Pilaf me Kos's justification and secondly the title has no problem. That was the official name of the country. This change is unnecessary. LefterDalaka (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Totalitarianism in government infobox

@Nikkimaria, why do you think it wouldn’t be appropriate to add totalitarianism in the government infobox? For every other totalitarian dictatorship (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea), totalitarianism is in the government infobox and here, I would argue the need for it here is especially so, the regime has been compared to North Korea’s level of totalitarianism. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd suggest reviewing the conversations above, which have disputed your conclusions regarding what should be included; it does not seem that you have obtained consensus for your viewpoint. As a reminder, what other articles do doesn't matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m saying that your arguments against inclusion are faulty and insufficient. I don't see how adding the details would violate any rules. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

At this point the argument you're relying on is one that is specifically called out as an argument to avoid, and doesn't get you any closer to the consensus required for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

How so? I would say the same of your argument. You refusal to this is frankly nonsense and a degradation of the article ErickTheMerrick (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

We had this discussion above. You are forcing you're opinion and no one agrees with you... TheUzbek (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

That is quite obviously not true as my edit was re-added twice by two separate people ErickTheMerrick (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

And reverted by several others; I don't revert other people's edits. TheUzbek (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Reverted exclusively by Nikkimaria, but that’s beyond the point. My point is that due to the extent of the totalitarianism practiced by the regime, it would be a grave mistake not to at least add mention of totalitarianism within the government infobox ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That is you're position. Totalitarianism has been discredited as a scholarly tool from the 1950s onwards because of its hazy analysis of power and change. Communist state suffices. TheUzbek (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Totalitarianism is still used on various Wikipedia articles (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Maoist China, etc) so it’s obviously still used despite being “discredited”, also, Communist Albania is called by a great many scholars as totalitarian. I may also add that not all communist states have been totalitarian so no, it does not suffice. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Tototarianism was the hegemonic theory/school to interpret Nazism and then communism. But with Stalin's death and Khrushchev's de-Stalinisation it was replaced chiefly by comparative communism and the mobilisation states theory. Was it totally discredited? No, its legacy still lives on. Totalitarianism was focused on key power institutions and people instead of the system as a whole. However, its theory postulated a monolithic state with unison ideology. Stalin's death proved that was wrong. Beneath that mask lay ideological conflict and policy differences as in any other state formation. Alas, Totalitarianism was deemed to be total and never-changig but de-Stalinisation proved that these states could change.

Alas, you say not all communist states were totalitarian. There are a great majority of thinkers who think all these states were by definition totalitarian. This is you're opinion, and you clearly lack depth and kmowledge on this subject. TheUzbek (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The eastern block states were totalitarian, I meant states like Thomas Sankara’s Burkina Faso, which while being authoritarian, cannot really be described as totalitarian. Also, I am not a Marxist-Leninist, I do not defend these states. About my knowledge on this subject, respectfully you don’t know me, don’t talk like you do. Totalitarianism should still be mentioned here despite your supposed “totalitarianism is no longer soemthing used” which can be proved wrong by its continued use by academics to describe a multitude of regimes after the death of Stalin and even up until this day(North Korea, Eritrea, Ba'athist ErickTheMerrick (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

(Pardon the unfinished answer, I accidentally pressed send.) Ba'athist Syria and Ba'athist Iraq. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I have never said you were a Marxist-Leninist; a Marxist-Leninist would never define their own state as totalitarian.

Totalitarianism is still used but not hegemonic in academia. For example, here is a scholarly article on a dismissive view of it: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45366932

Now, of course, totalitarianism still has still imprinted its influence. In academia, its exclusive focus on power. In liberal democratic politics, the accusation that everyone you don't like is authoritarian, autocratic or totalitarian. That is, its a difference between using a term and the total focus on the school. For example, Freud's terms are still in use, but generally, modern psychology believes most of his findings are outdated and wrong.

All of this is arbitrary: Why is not Sankara's Burkina Faso totalitarian? It was a one-party state that was headed by the military. Why was Ba'athist SYria and Iraq totalitarian, but not modern day Kazakhstan or Russia? You are just throwing out states without a) explaining why the institutions of these states created a totalitarian society, b) not even giving a definition of what totalitarianism is, c) not even explaining what the differences between what a authoritarian and totalitarian state is and d) dismissing communist state as vague, but asking to add an even more vaguer term that says nothing about how the state was organised or how it was run. TheUzbek (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t realize I needed to give you definitions of things that you could just search up. I’m not a dictionary you know. I just don't get how you can argue this even though I have cited multiple sources calling Hoxhaist Albania totalitarian. It seems to be pretty accepted to have been a totalitarian state and I just don't get the resistance against adding this. Frankly, it feels obstructionist. I could get even more sources for this claim if you’d like, but your argument doesn't seem to be the consensus on this any other wiki pages in which totalitarianism is used to be describe regimes. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria, why the removal of totalitarianism? It is sourced and there shouldn’t really be a problem with adding it. We settled a similar issue on the Somali Democratic Republic and now that has totalitarianism in the gov infobox, so why not here? ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Because it should be removed from the "Somali Democratic Republic" infobox as well. This vague denominator does not say anything specific about the institutions running Albania. Scholars label communist Albania totalitarian, that is fine, but we are saying that is not the form of government of Albania, and more precisely, that better terms can be used to describe it as, for example, communist state. But you don't seem to care, and if you don't care we don't need to continue this discussion. TheUzbek (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Communist state doesn't necessarily mean totalitarian. This seems to be some sort of ideological bias on your end and I suggest you leave your bias behind when making edits here. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, I do not see how totalitarianism can’t be alongside Marxist-Leninist state. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I have provided sources saying that it was a form of government for Albania. It was a state under totalitarian control by Enver Hoxha. I can find more sources if these don't satisfy you. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

To leave this out is ahistorical and rather careless and ignores the nature of the state. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Bringing this up again for reason stated above. To leave this out is irresponsible to the experience of readers. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

These sorts of characterizations should be kept out of the field on government infoboxes. This field should adhere closely to the concrete forms of governments -- they should tell us things like whether a state is unitary or federal, how the executive or legislative powers are held, and so forth. Characterizations of governments should be in the body, where they can be attributed and represented according to due weight, not the infobox which lacks the room for nuance. Trying to include characterizations in the infobox fields creates recurring contestation and is not practical. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The problem with the infobox it that doesn't do that at all: "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic" None of this means anything at all. What does it say about the powers of the highest state organ of power? Does it say anything about unified power? Or that the state is organised as a unified state apparatus? It is currently a mumbo jumbo of words that say little when combined. TheUzbek (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree it could be made better, but we should not make it worse. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Reopening this discussion as I find the exclusion of the totalitarian dictatorship of Enver Hoxha of which was sourced, is gross neglectfulness on your part. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

with the same participants, who all disagree with you? TheUzbek (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I find the resistance to this edit ridiculous as it is sourced information and not an excessive amount for the government infobox. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I find this to be extremely rude and incoherent. I have already shown you, and told you, about Comparative communism and how it was founded in opposition to totalitarianism. Today, that journal is called Communist and Post-Communist Studies. T. H Rigby was one of the leading lights of Soviet scholarship, and he criticised it in his article, "Review: 'Totalitarianism' and Change in Communist Systems". But, of course, some scholars criticised the comparative communist school. John H. Kautsky, in his article "Comparative Communism Versus Comparative Politics", in Studies in Comparative Communism (the forerunner of today's Communist and Post-Communist Studies), criticises both comparative communism and totalitarianism. You also have a general, extensive critique of the term from scholarship, for example, Tony Smith's article for the journal, French Politics and Society [2]. The thing is that you don't care about facts contrary to your own opinions.

I have been willing to compromise the whole way. From the beginning, I recommended that you write a short section about it in the body of the article, but you refused. Instead of actually improving anything, you go on and on about adding a controversial and superfluous entry in the infobox. TheUzbek (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This isn’t a matter of opinion, this is a matter of what should be included in the gov infobox. I don’t see how because some sources disagreeing with the use of totalitarianism to describe Marxist-Leninist states completely invalidates the inclusion of it here when it is also sourced. I don’t know why you accuse me of disregarding facts and sources when you are doing just that against my arguments. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

How am I disregarding you when I say write a short text about it?

"I don’t see how because some sources disagreeing with the use of totalitarianism." You don't seem to understand. They are against totalitarianism in itself; they view the term as intellectual garbage, which has more in common with propaganda than a useful scientific term to describe anything. That is the whole point. TheUzbek (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

"There was a previous consensus to this being a better linking": Communist state and Marxist-Leninist state is the SAME THING. Wikipedia disagrees with you, that is why Marxist-Leninist state redirects to communist state. That is why that article says that Marxist-Leninist state is synonymous with communist state. You are arguing over words for no apparent reason. TheUzbek (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no debate here. Hoxhaist Albania was a totalitarian regime. It’s universally accepted as such. Hoxha explicitly emulated Stalin’s total control, purges, and labor camp system down to the minuscule detail. Stalinism is totalitarian. Total control of movement, human liberties, etc. Albania was not a signatory of the Helsinki accords in 1975, while other communist states did. Albania had the worst human rights record in Europe even after that point. Saturnalia04 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Article goes by its date

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania ended on 29 April 1991, when the country was renamed. The communist system was, moreover, reformed, as the constitutional amendments abolished the communist party's monopoly over the state and unified power, meaning that at that point, Albania was no longer communist (but still had communists in power). TheUzbek (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)