Talk:Fiji–Tonga relations

unencyclopaedic statement
Fiji's Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama received "cheers and thunderous applause" from the Tongan public when he attended a Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Tonga in October 2007; the crowd's "enthusiastic reception" of Fiji's leader was likened to "that accorded to a rock star" Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a glowing endorsement of people. We should not include blatantly biased reporting. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. And for goodness' sake, assume good faith! I didn't include it to give a "glowing endorsement" of a dictator, and I strongly resent your baseless implication. You'll note that I included the descriptions between quotation marks: they're a quote, from the media. In fact, they come from the Fiji Times, which at the time was highly critical of Bainimarama's regime! It was not "biased reporting"; the Fiji Times article reported the facts. Go and read it for yourself. (The Fiji Times has never been described as being biased in favour of Bainimarama, only the reverse. That is, prior to April 2009, when Bainimarama muzzled it.) I realise you don't really know what you're talking about (which I don't mean as an insult; you're simply not knowledgeable on contemporary Pacific politics), but please try to understand the topic before you go flinging baseless accusations. Aridd (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * two of the three references for this do not say "like a rock star", at best there was cheering, so let's have some objective reporting of his arrival. we have 3 different sources from 3 different journalists. I propose changing the wording. LibStar (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've quoted what each media said. Aridd (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also for the record, one of the articles on my long list of articles to write will be one on Fiji-Samoa relations. Relations between those two countries are currently poor; the Samoan prime minister has repeatedly criticised Bainimarama in stronger terms than any other national leader has (calling him an "evil puppeteer" and saying he'd look best in a prison uniform, for exemple). When I get round to writing the article (if I ever find time), I intend to include those quotes. Will you delete them on the grounds that they're critical of someone? That any media which mentions them is "blatantly biased"? Aridd (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
I'm uncertain about the notability of the following: "In December 2006, Tonga was the only Pacific Island country not to send a representative to a meeting of foreign ministers to discuss the political crisis in Fiji, due to unrest in Tonga." It seems utterly anecdotal. What's the rationale for the incident's notability? Aridd (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * it's from a reliable source www.news.com.au? how can it be anecdotal? LibStar (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that the media never report anything that's anecdotal? Whether or not something is anecdotal for Wikipedia's purpose has nothing to do with the reliability (or lack thereof) of its source. The grounds for inclusion of an incident in a press article are not the same as the grounds for its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Not everything that's reported in the media should be added to Wikipedia. So I must ask: In what way is Tonga's absence from the meeting, reportedly due to internal Tongan affairs and not to the nature of Tonga's bilateral relations with Fiji, notable for this article on those bilateral relations? Maybe other editors could weigh in here, but I really don't see the notability. Aridd (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * as an act of good faith, I will remove the statement unless more references are found. it's still here in case we need it in future. thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. If other editors want to give their view, we can always rethink it. Aridd (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * on the same token, what is the notability of including "like a rock star", yes we can confirm the Commodore was cheered on arrival. I suspect Barack Obama gets cheered a lot (even like a rock star) where he goes but it's not reported like that in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because "like a rock star" points at the specificity of Tonga's relation with Fiji. Bainimarama wouldn't have been greeted "like a rock star" in New Zealand, for example. It was considered striking and notable by the press, and is directly on topic. When the controversial leader of one country receives an exuberant welcome in another country, that's very notable for an article on those countries' relations. (I'm not comparing Bainimarama with Ahmadinejad, but if Ahmadinejad were to receive a particularly warm welcome in a nearby country with which Iran has long-standing relations, that would be notable.) Most importantly, it touches directly on relations between the two countries. By contrast, I don't see what Tonga's absence from the December 2006 pre-coup meeting is supposed to say or imply about Fiji-Tonga relations. Perhaps you could clarify. Tonga was facing internal difficulties at the time, which had nothing to do with its relations with Fiji. Aridd (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"it touches directly on relations between the two countries" yes but doesn't just reporting warmly received with lots of cheering say the same thing in a more encyclopaedic fashion? LibStar (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe... It seems to me that quoting from the three articles gives a more precise impression, though. The Fiji Times, Radio Australia and TVNZ, none of which can be accused of pro-Bainimarama bias, all chose to use strong words ("star", "hero's welcome", etc...). I would say that these direct quotes work best to convey what happened. Also, I don't see any reason to remove the quotes. They're not unencyclopedic. Quoting what appears to be a media consensus is in line with Wikipedia policy on quotations; using speech marks and indicating sources clearly shows that Wikipedia is reporting a view, not adopting it. (In at least one other article, I've included direct quotes of people criticising Bainimarama, because the quotes seemed relevent.) Besides which, I don't even think the media have a "point of view" here. But, again, I'd be interested to hear a third view on the matter. Aridd (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

POV
I also would like to discuss this statement relations between the two countries are amicable. it is not evident from my reading of the article that this is the case, very regular state visits, a lot of trade and bilateral agreements may show this. but not shown from the article. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, to some extent, but... Then how would you characterise them? Sevele has been supportive of Bainimarama to some degree, playing a form of balancing game, pressuring him (rather lightly) to restore democracy while asking other countries to "understand" Fiji's situation. To me, it makes sense for the leading section of an article on bilateral relations to indicate to readers whether relations between the two countries in question are amicable, tense, or whatever else. Aridd (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not put a comment on the "amicability" of relations in the intro. most bilateral articles don't comment on the friendliness or "badness" of relations. LibStar (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather think they should, but... OK. I'll remove it, unless I see a direct source describing the quality of their relations. Aridd (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Headings
I don't think the contemporary relations heading is necessary. I would suggest delete and promote other headings. LibStar (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Maybe. But the advantage of the current layout is that it distinguishes historical relations as a first part, and current relations as a second. Politics and trade are, quite logically, two subsections of current relations. What do you suggest as an alternative? Thank you for your additions on economic relations, by the way. Aridd (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not too fussed, not the biggest issue I have with the article. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Maps
the map seems to have other nations circled, I'm not a Wikimap expert but it needs to be fixed. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the standard Wikipedia blank map, used everywhere. It circles Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands as well as Fiji, to indicate their boundaries. It's generally not considered a problem. Aridd (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiji–Tonga relations. 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/20120317002841/http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4271%3Apress-statement-by-the-fijian-government&catid=71%3Apress-releases&Itemid=155 to http://www.fiji.gov.fj/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4271%3Apress-statement-by-the-fijian-government&catid=71%3Apress-releases&Itemid=155

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)