This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiji Water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily page views
|
Why is the fluoride not appearing in the side of the page? right below calcium... isn't that misinformation & possibly a bug? Mbignotti ( talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm taking a stab at some quality improvements. I'm looking at a few popular beverage articles as a guide in my edits. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to list in tedium the places in which Fiji water is sold. It can suffice to say North America and Europe. If you look at Coca Cola (beverage) article, it doesn't list off the 100+ countries its available. Keeping them in this article places an undue emphasis on the places its available, impressing upon a reader the availability of such product. As such, the inclusion of all these places might be a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm removing it, tell me what you think though if you have a case for inclusion. But please discuss it here first because nobody else has bothered to do quality cleanup on this article. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It is really not notable what legal method is used to by Stewart and Lynda Resnick regarding their involvement with this private company (ie: that its involves some holding company with a placeholder website). What is notable is these individuals involvement, and only because they own a couple other notable businesses. I will add a short sentence taken from the POM Wonderful article which is cited regarding this business couple. The prose of what the parent or holding company is places undue emphasis on that company when its not even clear how notable the company would be in and of itself. The information on the holding company might be more appropriately conveyed in a company profile table we see on many other company profile articles. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the reference to a government designation, as its not really notable enough and might serve just as filler or promotion, especially in the introduction. Perhaps if there was/is a section regarding safety issues of water (if that was indeed appropriate) it might belong there? If we included a list of all the certifications and awards this relatively small company recieves it would be long, tedius, and not very useful. That information isn't very useful in the first place, and best-of articles dont seem to include them. Think of it, what if the Sony page included all the FCC licenses it obtained for its 1000s devices over the decades. It would be a strange article. Its inclusion in a small article like this seems to promote the idea that it is a "big company" or "legit" but really its just promotional and or mindless filler by a well meaning editor. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm appalled at the "community efforts" section, as best-of articles do not contain such sections. Its not notable on a larger scale. I'm sure the company insiders are proud of their efforts, and the recipients of their efforts are grateful, and I don't want to detract from any service they do provide. But the source of this material is only corporate promotional material. And it serves only to promote the company. For comparison see that the Microsoft article contains no mention of the VERY NOTABLE bill and melinda gates foundation. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving the text on "environment" etc to a new "controversy" section in line with other companies which have global presences that have borne out similar issues (like Chevron Corporation). This gives me an excuse to be able to include it in here, but I wonder if the article ends up being 50% controversy, if that means its an NPOV violation because of having undue emphasis. Please let me know what you think Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm compelled to remove a section on the "media" and military junta, because there's not a whole lot to the story that can be tied directly to Fiji water. Its that the reporter correlated her aggressive questioning to the fact she just sent email about Fiji. However plausible this may be in a military dictatorship, we can't publish speculation especially about a minor event in which no rape or beating was even alleged to have occur. The accusation is in fact very important as far as media goes, but I dont see the case for having it be on this page. There's no way to fairly tie the company to the reporter without more information, however sensitive I am to such things. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the "cleanup" request tag because as it stands, the article seems very concise and clean. But I'm adding a tag for expansion, as we need more sourced material on this company if possible. Retran ( talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I am totally removing the reference to winning Oracle's "green award" as it doesn't seem very notable and just promotional, never heard of this award and it makes little sense to a layperson such as me why a Database Software company is distributing such awards. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
According to a post at the Google Earth Community [1], the bottling plant is at 17°26′53″S 177°59′00″E / 17.448026°S 177.983258°E. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
An interesting article about the environmental impact of FIJI water (perhaps someone could mention this in the article?):
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/07/02/what_it_takes_to_bri.html
Includes a link to the original source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2214760
Viti Water, Fiji Water's wholly owned subsiderary, like many companies, pays taxes to the government. In this case, the current government of Fiji is a brutal, repressive military government. As of this writing, it is engaged in a battle with FIRCA (Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Service), who is attempting to levy even higher taxes on it to support the military government (search 'Frank Bainimarama').
The US export market, thanks to Fiji Water, is the only source of foreign exchange in the country which has not 'tanked' since the military siezed control of the government.
Second, it is ironic that few people in Fiji have water! In the urban areas, the water distribution system is old and plagued with repeated breakdowns. In some areas, the water is brought in daily by tank trucks and people fill their water jugs with the tanked water hoping that it will last until the next day. School closures due to water shortages are far from rare.
The water that the residents of Fiji drink is almost always from catchment systems, rather than artesian springs. In the rural areas, typhoid, as well as other diseases spread via water are far from rare, as there is rarely any sewage treatment. In addition, the catchment fields are often contaminated by human, pig, and chicken feces.
The sources that I'm citing are my eyes looking out my front door-- Fijibusinessman ( talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --
Mikecraig
01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"But while Americans are able to get Fiji Water every day, Fiji's own people can't get any thenselves."
I'm sorry, but just seeing that thrown carelessly into the middle of the page blows my mind. Quite honestly, it's a nonissue; Fiji's poor wouldn't be able to afford to tap into the artesian, so what is the point of this statement? To make people feel guilty for purchasing Fiji water? It doesn't belong.
Keep things related to the company and, if you want, its effects on the Fiji economy. Just be sure to keep the social commentary crusading out of the article. 24.3.61.3 ( talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Major deletions such as the one by User:Television rules the nation of the entire section containing criticism of Fiji Water should be discussed on this page before any action is being taken. For the time being, I restored the criticism section.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Fiji Water has been criticized for the environmental costs embedded in each bottle."
"The production plant runs on diesel fuel, 24 hours a day."
"The high-grade plastic used to make the bottles is transported from China to Fiji, and then (full of water) to the United States and other countries."
"A 1 liter bottle of Fiji Water contaminates 6.74 liters of water to stretch-blow mold the plastic, burns fossil fuel to transport plastics from China and full bottles to the country of sale, and produces 0.25 kg of greenhouse emissions, based on the U.S. as the country of sale."
"Recently, the company has taken efforts to curtail its carbon footprint in the hopes of becoming carbon negative through reduced product emissions, increased usage of renewable energy, and the offsetting of remaining emissions by 120%, starting in 2008. In addition, the company plans to reduce the size of its packaging by at least 20% for 2010, as well as exploring opportunities to spur on recycling."
"Trade with Fiji has also been criticized due to the country's military dictatorship. In 2008, Fiji's interim Prime Minister and coup leader Frank Bainimarama announced election delays and that it would pull out of the Pacific Island Forum in Niue, where Bainimarama would have met with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark."
Transporting bottled water across great distances necessarily involves lots of environmental costs. Same for beer. That is part of the reason why Foster's Lager which is advertised in the United States: as "Australian for beer" (which is basically untrue, as they do brew some in Australia, but nobody drinks it – as I was told by a traveler at an airport who was carrying a case of Victoria Bitter she bought as she was leaving the continent); and as "imported" (which is true but deceptive — it is brewed in and imported from Canada for U.S. sales). They made a business decision that the transshipment costs compared to the value of the product were too expensive to ship from Australia, when they could accomplish the same result through clever advertising and placement of their production facilities. Because Fiji is remote from most of the places where it might be marketed, there is a legitimate reason to mention it. Lots of transport costs here. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
After someone blanked the Discussion page, I renewed it, read the criticism of the "controversy" section and edited it appropriately. The "Trade with Fiji" paragraph mentioned absolutely nothing about Fiji Water and was moved to the Fiji article under "Economy". Please continue the good work documenting Fiji's world trade issues there.
Please, respect that Wikipedia is not a rant site. 96.229.61.118 ( talk) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
A simple Google search found some nice sources for the statements. They're relevant since the company made claims which were debunked, and made national news. -- 38.126.215.45 ( talk) 01:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) True but who wrote it can kill you and give you AIDS? Wikipedia really needs to do something about letting every fool edit its information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.28.64 ( talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is very mainstream information. Anytime Fiji water is brought up this is also brought up with it. That and Daedalus969 you said it find something that is 2 months past its original date. That seems to have been meet yet now its not? In fact some of the references I looked at showed it several years past the original story. Also I saw more then 2 References and 2 of them were different CNN stories, so not sure why you think it was only 2 with one being a BLOG? Not sure if you and 169ip have some ongoing issue/fight but seems to be clouding the subject. I usually link to wiki's fiji water page when someone ask about fiji water due to the Cleveland issue. -- Marlin1975 ( talk) 17:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
.. You know, never mind. I'm filing the SPI. I hope you learn a lesson from this. Like don't sockpuppet.—
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
And now you've been blocked. I've marked all the edits on this page by your IP socks appropriately.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Abusive use of alternate accounts aside( WP:SCRUTINY), nothing you or your sock have said above explains why you are flippantly violating WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS; amongst WP:EW and WP:NPA, and of course WP:N. Nothing you have said gives reason to violate policy, or rather, nothing you have said demonstrates that the section does not violate policy.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the terms "activists" and "environmentalists" because they do not cite specific activists or environmentalists, groups or individuals, so nobody can determine if they are notable or not and thus warrant inclusion... This even before we answer the question if its placement in this article is appropriate in regards to WP:NPOV, because the article is so short. Retran ( talk) 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It may still be a neutral article with the inclusion of the fact of many Fijians not having access to drinking water. But....there was NO source material that included this fact. The source material that was included (a Reuters news article that was a summary of an Icelandic news source) only contained an assertion attributed to nameless "environmentalists" and activists. Even if they were named, their assertion could not be repeated in an encyclopedia without further establishment of the fact that many Fijians do not have water access. And even if it was an established fact, what would be the reason for inclusion in this article? For literary irony? The wikipedia article on Fiji I'm sure discusses the country's poverty rating, and all those geo-political things. I feel that mere conveying literary irony is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. If the Fiji water company made some claim about taking on the responsibility to provide drinking water to all those needing it in the country, perhaps the failure would be worth a mention. We need something like that to establish neutrality in purveying such a fact on THIS article. Retran ( talk) 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This and stories like this seem to be to be completely absent from this article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/fiji-spin-bottle
Example:
Nowhere in Fiji Water's glossy marketing materials will you find reference to the typhoid outbreaks that plague Fijians because of the island's faulty water supplies; the corporate entities that Fiji Water has—despite the owners' talk of financial transparency—set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg; or the fact that its signature bottle is made from Chinese plastic in a diesel-fueled plant and hauled thousands of miles to its ecoconscious consumers. And, of course, you won't find mention of the military junta for which Fiji Water is a major source of global recognition and legitimacy. (Gilmour has described the square bottles as "little ambassadors" for the poverty-stricken nation.)
Lawfare ( talk) 04:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
what is this "FIJI Water" throughout the article?
In fact, I'd kind of guess that only people using "FIJI Water" are the company, us, and maybe some obscure outliers. I think we ought to get with the program and for this reason have changed all instances in the article of "FIJI Water" to "Fiji Water", trusting that this will be satisfactory? Herostratus ( talk) 09:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fiji Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fiji Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fiji Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This section should be removed. Despite media coverage (what DOESN'T have media coverage, these days?), the event is trivial and has zero "lasting, historical significance." See WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:PERSISTENCE, and related. Brianga ( talk) 04:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fiji Water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily page views
|
Why is the fluoride not appearing in the side of the page? right below calcium... isn't that misinformation & possibly a bug? Mbignotti ( talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm taking a stab at some quality improvements. I'm looking at a few popular beverage articles as a guide in my edits. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to list in tedium the places in which Fiji water is sold. It can suffice to say North America and Europe. If you look at Coca Cola (beverage) article, it doesn't list off the 100+ countries its available. Keeping them in this article places an undue emphasis on the places its available, impressing upon a reader the availability of such product. As such, the inclusion of all these places might be a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm removing it, tell me what you think though if you have a case for inclusion. But please discuss it here first because nobody else has bothered to do quality cleanup on this article. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It is really not notable what legal method is used to by Stewart and Lynda Resnick regarding their involvement with this private company (ie: that its involves some holding company with a placeholder website). What is notable is these individuals involvement, and only because they own a couple other notable businesses. I will add a short sentence taken from the POM Wonderful article which is cited regarding this business couple. The prose of what the parent or holding company is places undue emphasis on that company when its not even clear how notable the company would be in and of itself. The information on the holding company might be more appropriately conveyed in a company profile table we see on many other company profile articles. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the reference to a government designation, as its not really notable enough and might serve just as filler or promotion, especially in the introduction. Perhaps if there was/is a section regarding safety issues of water (if that was indeed appropriate) it might belong there? If we included a list of all the certifications and awards this relatively small company recieves it would be long, tedius, and not very useful. That information isn't very useful in the first place, and best-of articles dont seem to include them. Think of it, what if the Sony page included all the FCC licenses it obtained for its 1000s devices over the decades. It would be a strange article. Its inclusion in a small article like this seems to promote the idea that it is a "big company" or "legit" but really its just promotional and or mindless filler by a well meaning editor. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm appalled at the "community efforts" section, as best-of articles do not contain such sections. Its not notable on a larger scale. I'm sure the company insiders are proud of their efforts, and the recipients of their efforts are grateful, and I don't want to detract from any service they do provide. But the source of this material is only corporate promotional material. And it serves only to promote the company. For comparison see that the Microsoft article contains no mention of the VERY NOTABLE bill and melinda gates foundation. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving the text on "environment" etc to a new "controversy" section in line with other companies which have global presences that have borne out similar issues (like Chevron Corporation). This gives me an excuse to be able to include it in here, but I wonder if the article ends up being 50% controversy, if that means its an NPOV violation because of having undue emphasis. Please let me know what you think Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm compelled to remove a section on the "media" and military junta, because there's not a whole lot to the story that can be tied directly to Fiji water. Its that the reporter correlated her aggressive questioning to the fact she just sent email about Fiji. However plausible this may be in a military dictatorship, we can't publish speculation especially about a minor event in which no rape or beating was even alleged to have occur. The accusation is in fact very important as far as media goes, but I dont see the case for having it be on this page. There's no way to fairly tie the company to the reporter without more information, however sensitive I am to such things. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm removing the "cleanup" request tag because as it stands, the article seems very concise and clean. But I'm adding a tag for expansion, as we need more sourced material on this company if possible. Retran ( talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I am totally removing the reference to winning Oracle's "green award" as it doesn't seem very notable and just promotional, never heard of this award and it makes little sense to a layperson such as me why a Database Software company is distributing such awards. Retran ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
According to a post at the Google Earth Community [1], the bottling plant is at 17°26′53″S 177°59′00″E / 17.448026°S 177.983258°E. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 23:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
An interesting article about the environmental impact of FIJI water (perhaps someone could mention this in the article?):
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/07/02/what_it_takes_to_bri.html
Includes a link to the original source: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2214760
Viti Water, Fiji Water's wholly owned subsiderary, like many companies, pays taxes to the government. In this case, the current government of Fiji is a brutal, repressive military government. As of this writing, it is engaged in a battle with FIRCA (Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Service), who is attempting to levy even higher taxes on it to support the military government (search 'Frank Bainimarama').
The US export market, thanks to Fiji Water, is the only source of foreign exchange in the country which has not 'tanked' since the military siezed control of the government.
Second, it is ironic that few people in Fiji have water! In the urban areas, the water distribution system is old and plagued with repeated breakdowns. In some areas, the water is brought in daily by tank trucks and people fill their water jugs with the tanked water hoping that it will last until the next day. School closures due to water shortages are far from rare.
The water that the residents of Fiji drink is almost always from catchment systems, rather than artesian springs. In the rural areas, typhoid, as well as other diseases spread via water are far from rare, as there is rarely any sewage treatment. In addition, the catchment fields are often contaminated by human, pig, and chicken feces.
The sources that I'm citing are my eyes looking out my front door-- Fijibusinessman ( talk) 17:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --
Mikecraig
01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"But while Americans are able to get Fiji Water every day, Fiji's own people can't get any thenselves."
I'm sorry, but just seeing that thrown carelessly into the middle of the page blows my mind. Quite honestly, it's a nonissue; Fiji's poor wouldn't be able to afford to tap into the artesian, so what is the point of this statement? To make people feel guilty for purchasing Fiji water? It doesn't belong.
Keep things related to the company and, if you want, its effects on the Fiji economy. Just be sure to keep the social commentary crusading out of the article. 24.3.61.3 ( talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Major deletions such as the one by User:Television rules the nation of the entire section containing criticism of Fiji Water should be discussed on this page before any action is being taken. For the time being, I restored the criticism section.-- Mschiffler ( talk) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Fiji Water has been criticized for the environmental costs embedded in each bottle."
"The production plant runs on diesel fuel, 24 hours a day."
"The high-grade plastic used to make the bottles is transported from China to Fiji, and then (full of water) to the United States and other countries."
"A 1 liter bottle of Fiji Water contaminates 6.74 liters of water to stretch-blow mold the plastic, burns fossil fuel to transport plastics from China and full bottles to the country of sale, and produces 0.25 kg of greenhouse emissions, based on the U.S. as the country of sale."
"Recently, the company has taken efforts to curtail its carbon footprint in the hopes of becoming carbon negative through reduced product emissions, increased usage of renewable energy, and the offsetting of remaining emissions by 120%, starting in 2008. In addition, the company plans to reduce the size of its packaging by at least 20% for 2010, as well as exploring opportunities to spur on recycling."
"Trade with Fiji has also been criticized due to the country's military dictatorship. In 2008, Fiji's interim Prime Minister and coup leader Frank Bainimarama announced election delays and that it would pull out of the Pacific Island Forum in Niue, where Bainimarama would have met with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark."
Transporting bottled water across great distances necessarily involves lots of environmental costs. Same for beer. That is part of the reason why Foster's Lager which is advertised in the United States: as "Australian for beer" (which is basically untrue, as they do brew some in Australia, but nobody drinks it – as I was told by a traveler at an airport who was carrying a case of Victoria Bitter she bought as she was leaving the continent); and as "imported" (which is true but deceptive — it is brewed in and imported from Canada for U.S. sales). They made a business decision that the transshipment costs compared to the value of the product were too expensive to ship from Australia, when they could accomplish the same result through clever advertising and placement of their production facilities. Because Fiji is remote from most of the places where it might be marketed, there is a legitimate reason to mention it. Lots of transport costs here. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
After someone blanked the Discussion page, I renewed it, read the criticism of the "controversy" section and edited it appropriately. The "Trade with Fiji" paragraph mentioned absolutely nothing about Fiji Water and was moved to the Fiji article under "Economy". Please continue the good work documenting Fiji's world trade issues there.
Please, respect that Wikipedia is not a rant site. 96.229.61.118 ( talk) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
A simple Google search found some nice sources for the statements. They're relevant since the company made claims which were debunked, and made national news. -- 38.126.215.45 ( talk) 01:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) True but who wrote it can kill you and give you AIDS? Wikipedia really needs to do something about letting every fool edit its information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.28.64 ( talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually this is very mainstream information. Anytime Fiji water is brought up this is also brought up with it. That and Daedalus969 you said it find something that is 2 months past its original date. That seems to have been meet yet now its not? In fact some of the references I looked at showed it several years past the original story. Also I saw more then 2 References and 2 of them were different CNN stories, so not sure why you think it was only 2 with one being a BLOG? Not sure if you and 169ip have some ongoing issue/fight but seems to be clouding the subject. I usually link to wiki's fiji water page when someone ask about fiji water due to the Cleveland issue. -- Marlin1975 ( talk) 17:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
.. You know, never mind. I'm filing the SPI. I hope you learn a lesson from this. Like don't sockpuppet.—
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
And now you've been blocked. I've marked all the edits on this page by your IP socks appropriately.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Abusive use of alternate accounts aside( WP:SCRUTINY), nothing you or your sock have said above explains why you are flippantly violating WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS; amongst WP:EW and WP:NPA, and of course WP:N. Nothing you have said gives reason to violate policy, or rather, nothing you have said demonstrates that the section does not violate policy.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the terms "activists" and "environmentalists" because they do not cite specific activists or environmentalists, groups or individuals, so nobody can determine if they are notable or not and thus warrant inclusion... This even before we answer the question if its placement in this article is appropriate in regards to WP:NPOV, because the article is so short. Retran ( talk) 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It may still be a neutral article with the inclusion of the fact of many Fijians not having access to drinking water. But....there was NO source material that included this fact. The source material that was included (a Reuters news article that was a summary of an Icelandic news source) only contained an assertion attributed to nameless "environmentalists" and activists. Even if they were named, their assertion could not be repeated in an encyclopedia without further establishment of the fact that many Fijians do not have water access. And even if it was an established fact, what would be the reason for inclusion in this article? For literary irony? The wikipedia article on Fiji I'm sure discusses the country's poverty rating, and all those geo-political things. I feel that mere conveying literary irony is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. If the Fiji water company made some claim about taking on the responsibility to provide drinking water to all those needing it in the country, perhaps the failure would be worth a mention. We need something like that to establish neutrality in purveying such a fact on THIS article. Retran ( talk) 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This and stories like this seem to be to be completely absent from this article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/fiji-spin-bottle
Example:
Nowhere in Fiji Water's glossy marketing materials will you find reference to the typhoid outbreaks that plague Fijians because of the island's faulty water supplies; the corporate entities that Fiji Water has—despite the owners' talk of financial transparency—set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg; or the fact that its signature bottle is made from Chinese plastic in a diesel-fueled plant and hauled thousands of miles to its ecoconscious consumers. And, of course, you won't find mention of the military junta for which Fiji Water is a major source of global recognition and legitimacy. (Gilmour has described the square bottles as "little ambassadors" for the poverty-stricken nation.)
Lawfare ( talk) 04:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
what is this "FIJI Water" throughout the article?
In fact, I'd kind of guess that only people using "FIJI Water" are the company, us, and maybe some obscure outliers. I think we ought to get with the program and for this reason have changed all instances in the article of "FIJI Water" to "Fiji Water", trusting that this will be satisfactory? Herostratus ( talk) 09:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Fiji Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fiji Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fiji Water. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This section should be removed. Despite media coverage (what DOESN'T have media coverage, these days?), the event is trivial and has zero "lasting, historical significance." See WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:PERSISTENCE, and related. Brianga ( talk) 04:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)