Talk:Fiji Water

stab at Quality Improvements

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 [1], the bottling plant is at 17.448026°S 177.983258°E / -17.448026; 177.983258. --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 ( ~~~~ ) 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)

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)

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, Athene cunicularia (talk · contribs), 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)

Cleveland

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)