Talk:Fiji Water

stab at Quality Improvements
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)

Possible location of the bottling plant
According to a post at the Google Earth Community, the bottling plant is at. --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

http://consumerist.com/consumer/conspicuous-consumption/its-easier-for-you-to-drink-fiji-water-than-it-is-for-most-people-from-fiji-274507.php

Implications of Fiji Water to Fiji
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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)

What is this?
"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)
 * In other words an encyclopedia should steer clear of anything that smacks of social responsibility? (Not complaining, just checking.)  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia isn't any more activist than a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of section containing criticism of Fiji Water
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)
 * Really? Ok, let me get the crayons out and start drawing pictures...

"Fiji Water has been criticized for the environmental costs embedded in each bottle."
 * Criticized by whom? The scientific community? Nope. Only a couple blogs and wikipedia. Credible refs should be provided so the section looks like a professional entry instead of this amature attempt to sway opinions.

"The production plant runs on diesel fuel, 24 hours a day."
 * How do you know? How do you know they don't use bio diesel? What kind of studies have been found to back the implication that they should be criticized? Pablo or other bloggers best guess?

"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."
 * What kind of BS is this? They produce their own bottles at the site.

"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."
 * More BS. This statement is backed by a blog entry ref. To make matters worse, the blog entry is a best guess attempt at what the numbers are without any factual data what-so-ever. The laughable part is that stretch blow molding uses air and re-circulating water systems that must be held at a specific temperature. So stating that 6.74 liters of water is used to "stretch-blow mold" as if the water is used once and then dumped indicates how scientifically inept this section is.

"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."
 * Well gezuz, that doesn't warrant an environmental criticism section.

"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."
 * What the hell does this have to do with fiji water company. This section belongs in the Fiji (country) section.


 * Thanks for wasting my time. All I wanted to know is if they are located in Fiji or not. Now ban me (someone) and go watch TV. The end. Television rules the nation (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to specify where you disagree with the criticism. I checked the references provided in the article. They actually provide detailed and specific information to back up the figures they have. Of course, they still could be wrong. For example, I don't know anything about stretch-blow molds. So you may be right on this, or maybe not. If you know for sure that some of the statements are wrong - such as the statement that plastic bottles are imported from China, while you write that they are manufactured on site in Fiji - than you need to back your statement up with a reference. Of course no one would think about banning you. It is always good to have statements challenged to see if they can withstand the criticism. But, in this case, the arguments that you provided so far do not, in my view, warrant any modifications of the criticism section.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because details are true and/or from verifiable sources doesn't mean they warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic article. (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). This information apparently belongs in other places, but not here. It's not notable per Wikipedia notability policies, and is also a violation of WP:NPOV... I would agree with "Television rules the nation" that it should be removed....it places undue weight. Also see featured/best-of articles regarding companies (take a look at Coca-Cola) and you won't see sections that go on about minute social implications regarding each location. This is a small company, and a short article, and we have to be very careful not to ruin it by placing soapbox material and destroying the encyclopedic credibility. Retran (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been significant media coverage of the ethical and environmental issues involving this product. I therefore do not think it unreasonable, or against wikipedia's policies, to mention this and the reasons why, as long as it is composed of well referenced fact and not opinion. Retran, I do not think that it can be called a "small company" it holds a significant market share in the US and Europe. However, I agree that it is not appropriate for the article to be mainly composed of such a section. C3lticmatt (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I am extremely sympathetic to environmental and social concerns, but as an encyclopedia editor I cannot see the justification for including a section regarding environmental criticism in THIS article. Just to clarify, the size of the article is an important point to consider here regarding WP:UNDUE within WP:NPOV guidelines. Also, yes the size of the company is considered "small", relative to large multinationals, but that is aside the point. I brought up a comparison to CocaCola because their article receives wide attention and certainly is subject to similar kinds of environmental criticism, yet you don't see a similar fixation or same percentage of that article dealing with criticisms as you see constantly proposed for this Fiji Water article. It's helpful to have a look at the WP:SOAPS policy, as we want to keep this article strictly to encyclopedic content, and not journalism. There are great venues for spreading this information elsewhere on the internet. I've seen editors post external links to these venues (inappropriately, I argue), but it shows the venues exist and all of us activists can pin our hopes there. Wikipedia however, is not the place to perform activism. Retran (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Applied the changes
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)
 * Wikipedia is indeed not a rant site, and as stated quite clearly at WP:STRUCTURE, Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view.


 * Per the above, I have removed the unnecessary controversy header, as it really draws away from what this article is about, the company. Not the companies mishaps, mistakes, errors, etc.  Per MOS, such sections should be worked into the article text itself, instead of having their own such sections, which in themselves violates WP:UNDUE.76.175.3.43 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, as a little more thorough review of the article, I have added the undue weight tag, as it is mostly about the criticism, and very little about the company itself. The criticism is maybe.. 2-3 times the size of the actual history of the company.  This needs to be fixed pronto, but as I am not that well of an editor myself, in terms of prose, I would suggest someone else do it.


 * Lastly,, assuming you read this, I suggest you check yourself. Your use of rollback on my edit was strictly against policy, as rollback is only to be used for obvious vandalism.  Be sure to also leave an edit summary.  I suggest you get twinkle for that, as it allows for such things.  Lastly, I suggest instead of blindly reverting again, you discuss.76.175.3.43 (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, 76.175.3.43. I undid your edits, since on my talk page, you said that you're editing under your IP because you're on an "enforced wikibreak" from editing under your username.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, person who fails to read. I put myself on the wikibreak, as I said at your talk page.  I was not blocked, I simply used the wikibreak enforcer.  I was on the wikibreak for reasons that were unrelated to article editing, so instead of blindly reverting and assuming, why don't you try reading my comments at face value, and stop assuming bad faith.76.175.3.43 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * O.k.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Clevelan had
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)
 * Ignoring the obvious vandalism regarding lethality and AIDS, there's something to be questioned about the notability of keeping the Cleveland section in the arrticle. It hasn't be rementioned in mainstream press, review articles, or anything independant since it went by. It was just a current event and really it holds little relevance here. I'm going to be bold and remove it, as its been a while the section has been bothering me b/c of WP:NPOV. Not only was the "controversy" section inappropriate (which another editor thankfully removed) this section itself isn't appropriate for similar reasons. --Retran (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a mjor part of its history and one this is brought up many times. Let alone it made a top list of mistakes etc... You don;t remove something because it doe snto keep happening. It was a major story and is parts of their Fiji Waters history. --169.253.4.21 (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC) <This user is actually an IP sock of, who has been blocked following Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975. Perma-link.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipeida is not a soapbox. This old ad campaign is certainly not a notable part of their history and its something quite strange to have featured with a full section, not to mention it places undue emphasis on it. The % of the article dealing with the weird campaign is quite high with this section included, and that makes it bad quality to have it included. It's not mentioned much anymore in mainstream media, it was a flash in the pan for a small period of time and has no bearing anymore, whatsoever. --Retran (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The story is notable and also part of their history. It was a pretty large story and made news on their part. I added it back.
 * It has been on TALK a few times and always stays on. If you keep up 3RR. --169.253.4.21 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC) <This user is actually an IP sock of, who has been blocked following Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975. Perma-link.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. That is not how consensus works, nor is it how WP:BRD works.  You don't get to have your way before consensus forms.  First gain it, then you can.  But not before.  Secondly, the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove why this is notable, and why we should violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:N.  Oh, and you can't use WP:IAR as justification for such edits.  I realize you haven't used it, but putting it out there just in case.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 00:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is notable and not only did it make major news but also made a top 100 list of bad decisions. Many people to this day know Fiji water for this. It has been written per Wiki rules and has plenty’s of REFs not only due to it awareness but also its nature as standing out and a part if Fiji Waters history. This is a major part of Fiji Water and has proper REFs for that. --169.253.4.21 (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)  <This user is actually an IP sock of, who has been blocked following Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975. Perma-link.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is notable(which you have yet to prove), then you should have no trouble finding sources talking about it 2 months from the occurrence date. Like I said; WP:BURDEN.  It is on you to demonstrate the notability of this material, and why we should violate several core policies to have it included.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 10:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the REFs you would see many are well after 2 months, some even from 2010. So yes it has been proven. All you had to do is look. --169.253.4.21 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC) <This user is actually an IP sock of, who has been blocked following Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975. Perma-link.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs  04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did read the refs. There is only one that may meet the rule regarding reliable sources.  The other does not, as it is a blog.  A single sources is not justification for an entire section, much less an advertising campaign.


 * I've said it before, and I'll say it again; you are the minority here. Consensus is against you.  You are a single editor on a crusade to have your way, but you do not get to have your way until you have consensus for it.  We already have consensus, it's called the multiple policies you've been referred to, that your edit has violated.  Even if policy were not in question, you are still the one that the WP:BURDEN applies to; you are still the one that added the material.  As said, you do not get to have your way before consensus is achieved.  Only after.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:49, 9 October 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 do realize that pretending to be two different people is a violation of our policy on multiple accounts, right? It's called avoiding scrutiny.  You have the exact same editing style as the IP; they are clearly you.


 * So... Here's the crux. You can either admit to your abusive sockpuppetry, and restrict yourself to one account, or....  I can file an SPI on you, and get you blocked.  I've been doing this for awhile, spotting socks is rather easy, and you've made so many mistakes the SPI will go rather fast.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 02:29, 10 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)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975 <- There's your chance to admit to your abuse. I suggest you do so.  Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to socking.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 03:23, 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)
 * Oh, and don't undo my notations of your socks.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Environmental and Social
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)


 * I found a United Nations source for that access to safe drinking water statistic. It is a natural thing to wonder about, what the locals do for water considering water is a major export of this very small country. -- Beland (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to find a citation. But including a statement comparing the access to drinker water stats to a UN report seems to be a creation of new material (as in, this comparison wasn't made in the source). The language as was written seemed intended to portray a sense of "irony" (see WP:SOAPS). Furthermore, I would argue it would be a WP:NPOV violation because this would apply to any industry that uses water operating in a country with poor residents. Also, due the length of the article, it's hard to keep the article in compliance with WP:UNDUE if this is pointed out, as it's an article on the bottled water, (wikipedia is not a soapbox, there are other venues on the internet to communicate these things, see WP:SOAPS). I hope this helps further the discussion on what should be included in this article. Retran (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (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)

Fiji Water vs FIJI Water
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)
 * The article title does not use all caps, and the text and title should match; so we ought to either change the title to "FIJI Water" or change the article text.
 * But "FIJI" is not an acronym. It's just a name. So normally our MOS regarding capitalization of proper names would apply.
 * I get that FIJI is how the company would prefer it to be rendered. But the controlling authority is preponderance of use in notable sources. (It is for that reason -- preponderance of usage of the company's typography in other sources, or lack of it -- that we make exceptions to our MOS for eBay etc. but not for Macy*s etc.)\
 * Well Google Ngrams has (barely) heard of "Fiji Water" but not of "FIJI Water", and my first five (non-company) hits on Google use "Fiji Water", and that includes NPR and Huffpost (I didn't bother to look beyond that).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fiji Water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110405003553/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131656523 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131656523

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202051420/http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/fiji-water-leaves-fiji-4-things-to-know-about-the-shutdown/19736926 to http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/fiji-water-leaves-fiji-4-things-to-know-about-the-shutdown/19736926

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) 12:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160502222151/http://fit4maui.com/water/pu/bottled_ph.html to http://fit4maui.com/water/pu/bottled_ph.html

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) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump video
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)
 * ✅  General Ization Talk  04:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree.  WP:Not paper.  WP:BRD Continuing interest.  Mentioned and adverted to during Trump's [2018 State of the Union Address]] last week, during which he made a point of demonstrating drinking Water (from a glass) with one hand. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly a consensus. I will wait for further comments.  02:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)