Talk:Albanian–Chinese split

Albania Mid‑importance

	Albanian–Chinese split is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removed[edit]

I removed that link as it doesnt have a historic-scientific-informational value. http://news.socialistforum.net/?q=node/3 its merely an anonymous comment without citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.138.209 (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Soon after Mao's death in 1976 and after the removal of the Gang of Four of the Cultural Revolution period, Hoxha condemned the new leadership as well as its Three Worlds Theory. The PRC's response was to invite Tito to Beijing in 1977, signaling the end of its assistance programs for Albania in 1978." What has Tito do with all of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.118.67 (talk) 09:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tito was seen as an enemy of international socialism by Hoxha, and was a major reason for Albania's split with the Soviet Union in 1960. (The Soviets post-Stalin rehabilitated Tito for the most part after 1956) --Mrdie (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Albanian split → Sino–Albanian split – Correct dash as per WP guidelines. VEO^onefive 22:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. That's inaccurate. I quote from WP:NDASH: "Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent, so use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry."--Cold Season (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be an en-dash. Shabratha (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cold Season. A hyphen is appropriate here, not an endash, because "Sino" is not a self-standing, independent form. The guideline makes this clear. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested comments[edit]

Went through this and enjoyed the read. A good article, very interesting.

My main suggestion would be to take out and pare down some of the quotations, especially a lot of Hoxha quotes. The reader gets bogged down in all the rhetoric and it gives the article a bit of a one-sided flavor. Hearing so much in his own words makes the reader wonder if there's more going on behind the rhetoric (e.g. personal conflicts, economic pressures?), or if the conflict was really so ideology-based as he makes it seem. That is, relying so heavily on the hoxha quotes makes the whole article take his stance too much at face value, one wonders if there are more practical, less ideological reasons for the split that could have been explored in more depth. The Hoxha quotes do lend a flavor to the article; by no means should they all be taken out--just pared down. It would be good to have more quotes from china although I'm sure they had a lot less to say about it than the Albanians!

I think it would benefit greatly by adding a cross-section of historians' opinions--not quoting, but boiling down the consensus if there is one.

In general I recommend cutting out a lot of the quotations and paraphrasing more simply and briefly. I think a quotation is good if it depicts a figure's attitude or personality (like the Hoxha quotes), not so if it just states facts you could paraphrase in a simpler, more concise way, e.g. some of the quotations of historians could be simpler if paraphrased.

Some of the Hoxha quotations could be pared down, too. e.g.: "Their pressure is not imaginary, but took concrete form in the military and economic plot headed by Beqir Balluku, Petrit Dume, Hito Çako, Abdyl Këllezi, Koço Theodhosi, Lipe Nashi, etc." Does this laundry list of names add any meaning? Or could the quote end at 'plot' or after the first name? Or could this be paraphrased?

What if you went through and took out a lot of quotes, pared some down and paraphrased others? If you do that we can take another look afterwards and get into more nitty gritty if you want.

A few smaller comments too:

The transliterations of names should be consistent throughout: zhou/chou enlai, Mao Tsetung/Zedong, Bejing/Peking. Figure out what the MOS says to do with different spellings inside quotations, I doubt we should go back and forth.

Introduce acronyms explicitly on first use: "the Central Committee (CC)…" Better yet, avoid CC in favor of Central Committee; "the CC of the CCP" is such a mouthful.

I changed . . . to … per WP:ELLIPSIS.

I don't get this: "in the final analysis, arm the working class and attack the committees, but not with children" what children?

'With' is an awkwrd conjunction, e.g. here: "…ask for the restoration of diplomatic relations from the Soviet Union, with the Albanians taking offense to such views." you could use a semicolon or 'and' or 'but'. There are a bunch of instances of this.

run-on: Another difference between the Albanians and Chinese was on the treatment of "anti-revisionist" parties in Europe and elsewhere who openly upheld the positions of the Albanians and Chinese against the Soviet Union, with the Chinese being reluctant to organize them in joint endeavors due to fears of alienating "neutral" parties such as those in the DPRK and DR Vietnam, whereas the Albanians took an active interest in such efforts; Hoxha wrote that the CCP "is avoiding general meetings. . . It holds meetings with other parties, one at a time, which it is entitled to do, and after such meetings these parties come out with statements and articles which defend everything which China says and does.

"In December the Albanians were given a Chinese note criticizing…" - passive voice makes this confusing. Could you say "the Chinese gave"?

Great work so far! Thanks for inviting me to get involved. After you make some edits let me know if you want me to take another look. delldot ∇. 01:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "children" mentioned is a reference to the Red Guards, who were of student age. On another comment of yours I could perhaps use "Chinese Central Committee" or "Chinese CC" instead of "CC of the CCP." I will take into account your other comments when I have time to edit the article. --Ismail (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]