Talk:Fiji

An event mentioned in this article is an October 10 selected anniversary.

Old talk

Does the word Indian in this article refer to people from India or to those of a more native heritage to Fiji? Kingturtle 07:18 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

People from India. The political turmoil in Fiji under George Speight was due more or less to racial tensions between native Fijians and Indian immigrants (see History of Fiji). - Hephaestos

I'm rather curious as to whether there have been any attempts to restore the monarchy in Fiji? It seems that there should at least be a referendum on it, considering the circumstances that led to the country becoming a Republic SoLando 05:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, there have been no serious attempts to restore the monarchy, although some members of the Great Council of Chiefs suggested the idea when the Constitution was revised in 1996-1997. It is curious that even though it was extremist Fijian nationalists that proclaimed the republic, support for restoring the monarchy has come almost entirely from the Great Council of Chiefs, which 'still' recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as its Paramount Chief, but subordinate to the country's republican institutions, a position that she has apparently not repudiated. Parties representing the Indo-Fijian community, as well as the non-chiefly classes of ethnic Fijians, pushed strongly for the retention of the republic. It has to be recognized that Fiji's constitution was revised at a time when republican sentiment in Australia, with which Fiji has close ties, was at its zenith.

Interestingly, it was Indo-Fijian politicians like R. D. Patel and Sidiq Koya who first pushed for a republic back in the 1960s, whereas Fijian chiefs like Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara opposed it. When Sitiveni Rabuka seized power in 1987, he initially had no intention of abolishing the monarchy, and did so only when it became clear that it stood in the way of his objectives.

Although some members of the Great Council of Chiefs wanted to restore the monarchy, the majority recognized that too much water had flowed under the bridge, and that there would be little point in going back. At any rate, the monarchy had failed to prevent a commoner like Rabuka from seizing power - initially in the name of the chiefs, but gradually trying to upstage them subsequently. Indo-Fijians, who had never fully supported the monarchy in the first place, felt that their doubts about it were confirmed by its failure to prevent the 1987 coup which trampled on their rights and imposed an apartheid-like system of discrimination against them. Neither side, apart from a minority of mostly aging Fijian chiefs, saw any point in turning back the clock. Davidcannon 09:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

'Democracy' in Fiji

The article talks about the 'restoration of democracy'...is it really democratic when every time your ethnic group loses the election you overthrow the government?

No, it's not democratic to do that. Elections are judged to be free and fair only if your own ethnic group wins. To some extent, both sides have been guilty of this, in my opinion (which doesn't belong in the article). David Cannon 11:34, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There have been Discussions online and in Fiji on the in-ability of Fijian chiefs and the institution of Great Council of Chiefs to arrest the growing problems for their own people. Fijians own 80% of the land, yet have not enjoyed any degree of social mobility. This has created alot of animosity on the landowners perspective. There have been reports of the erosion of Fijian lanuage and culture. Yet the Ministry of Fijian Affairs has not focussed much on culture but props up the chiefly system. What is more important in Fiji, the culture or the institutions?

Fiji blog on current affairs addresses these socio-cultural. socio-political trains of thoughts.

Is this a new paradigm in Fiji politics?

History

I'm curious as to when the first Asians actually arrived in Fiji. Was it thousands of years ago, or just hundreds? I'm writing a paper on the place, so the best estimation would be nice.

Fijians first came from Polynesia thousands of years ago. Tracing back to Asia would be alot further back, although there are no reliable estimates.

Here, Asians came to fiji about thousands of years before, however left due to discrimmintational policies from fijian officials, and returned in the 1900's, when were "colonised" by the British.

'***'

As gently as I can... James Michener writes in his book Return to Paradise that as a reaction to European pirates, Fiji went ferociously cannibal for a century or two, and that only fairly persistent Christian missionary work turned them back around. Is it true and is there some academically more suitable reference?

Michener also says some fairly harsh things about the Indians who had colonized Fiji in his day.

national bird

What is Fiji's national bird?

I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'national bird' or 'national animal' or any sort of national symbol that is formally recognised by the government except for the flag, the coat of arms and the 'tabua' as stated in the government's official website. Of course, Rugby has been the de facto national sport for a long time now. Although, if I remember correctly, the flower 'tagimoucia' was regarded as the 'national flower'. I'll look it up. Erehtsti 14:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well we dont have a National bird but an Animal that is endemic to fiji is the Crested Iguanawhich is the pride oof our country like the kiwi bird is to New Zealand and the Wallaby is to Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cometstyles (talk • contribs) 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

rokothoko not correct pronounciation either

Rokocoko pronounced rokothoko?

not really, most people would pronounce rokothoko with the voiceless dental fricative, its actually pronounced with the voiced dental fricative.

shouldn't we use IPA instead of english approximations for the pronounciation of Fijian words?

I agree in principle, but the problem is that many readers would not know the IPA. David Cannon 22:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

this has been discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Mixed_feelings_about_IPA

further elaborated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28pronunciation%29

i think this discussion has settled it, IPA is a pain in the proverbial but the alternative is inaccuracy and misinterpretation. If I can quote "Ad-hoc pronunciation guides are discouraged. Forms such as "pro-NUN-see-AY-shun" can be read in different ways by people who speak different international variants of English, or whose first language isn't English."

this one is particularly good:

It's little bit as though you were saying, "ordinary people don't get the metric system, and they don't have time to learn about them on Wikipedia, so we should use ad hoc descriptions like 'it's about as long as your leg' instead of 'it measures 1 metre'."

The only problem is i have to learn IPA as well!

--Xorkl000 11:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to know some of the business customs of the country because i am doing research on it in tech,( if anyone knows any references that would be nice) OK

844 islands - reference?

This is the first i've heard of such a number - 300 odd is the number that i've been hearing all my life, and is the number taucht in schools etc.

Are we including islets to get such a number - if so i think we should revert to the 322 number.

--Xorkl000 07:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I've got two sources this one and also this one - it was the second one on which I based my edit. If it is wrong, I'm happy for you to revert to 322. David Cannon 09:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The WWF pdf makes it clear - the 844 number includes islets, so the decision to revert depends one view on whether islets should be counted as islands, i vote no, but what is the general practise around here on this? --Xorkl000 03:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that it includes islets - I should have read the page more carefully before quoting it. I don't think there is any clear distinction on Wikipedia between islands and islets. Or to put it another way, the general practice seems to recognize that such a distinction exists, but is unclear on where the line of demarcation is. I have no clear mind of my own about it either. If Fiji "officially" counts 322 islets, I now think Wikipedia should recognize that, but point out that there are numerous other islets. May I tentatively propose the following wording: The country occupies an archipelago of about 322 islands, of which 106 are permanently inhabited; in addition, there are some 522 islets.

sounds good to me --Xorkl000 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! David Cannon 08:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've got in front of me a Fiji Islands Free Visitor Guide 2005 Edition which seems to be endorsed by the Fiji Visitors Bureau (its got their logo and info in the front). It states in two different places that the number of islands is 333. I quote the Minister for Tourism, Hon Pita K Nacuva "We in Fiji have often been told that our 333 unspoiled islands..." and later on in the guide "Fiji's 333 islands are predominately volcanic in origin, with some smaller coral or limstone islets. Of these, only 106 are actually inhabited. At 18,333 sq km, Fiji has the greatest land mass in Polynesia". Notice that the area given is greater than that in the article also. Maybe some islands have been added to Fiji? --Jaredwiltshire 13:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I live in Fiji and the number of 'islands' in the broadest sense of the word is 299 at high tide, and 301 and low tide. --Xava

Flag of Fiji

Did the flag just go from a 'defaced pale blue British ensign' to one with a lighter shade of green? Leftist 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Um I do remember seeing it a light shade of blue a couple of days ago yeah. The colour that it is now is wrong. See http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/national_symbols.shtml as a reference.--Jaredwiltshire 13:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already voiced my objection at Greentubing's user talk page. Leftist 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don;t agree with the colour too, I think it should be the previous colour. IMO the Fiji govt link above is not exact, e.g. the Union is of the wrong colour. My previous colouring of "sky blue", which is consistent with the other Wikipedia "sky blues", is the one found on the Fiji Civil Air ensign. It was changed due to someone's objection to it being too dark.

See my talk page for a detailed explanation.

Greentubing 21:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (with additions)

Get the race right !

Though the government has established that the term Indo-Fijian will refer to the Indian migrants that came to Fiji in the 1900's, this was decided by a Fijian government.

I'm a Indian citizen of Fiji, born and bred, and I find the term Indo-Fijian racially offensive. We are Indians born in Fiji. Not some Fijian race sub-category.

I will appreciate it if people stop refering to Indians as Indo-Fijians. Just because Indians are all over the world does'nt mean we have to converge into another race to make things easier.

(Fiji Indians will do fine)

thats one view, but the facts are that it is mostly Fiji Indians/Indo Fijians/Fijians of Indian Ancestry that have created this term indo-fijian and asked to be referred as such. Brij Lal was one of the early popularisers of this word, and i think you need to spend some time reading his work and his justification behind his use of the term.

"this was decided by a Fijian government" - well that is flat out incorrect, there has been no such decision. In fact the current government has a couple of MPs that oppose the use of this term.

we can not let these articles become battleground for the indian vs. indo fijian debate, let us resist the temptation to get into a revert war and try to come to a concensus here.

my own view - "Info-Fijian" seems to be the more common term in written english, in wins the google test against "Fiji Indian" by 65,000 to 18,000. Indo-Fijian clearly deliniates these people as full citizens of Fiji, while Fiji Indian implies that what we have a group of people from the subcontinent that just happen to live in Fiji. Indo-Fijian culture and society is a unique product of Fiji, and "Indo-Fijian" is the only word that captures this fact. --Xorkl000 08:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)-

You are completly right! The indians were brought to fiji, often forcibly against their own will, and we deserve the right ot be distinguished of our heritage, not some kaviti dominance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kumarnator (talk • contribs) 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

I think the point of the objection to labelling Fijians of Indian descent is found in the context "I was born...in Fiji". Born without equality. Without doubt the label Indo-Fjiian is designed to discriminate between those that are of Indian ancestry and those of indigenous Fijian ancestry. The assumption, and after 25 years living in South Pacific I have found this to be the most common objection to the term Indo-Fijian, is that Indo-Fijians are made to feel lesser than "native" Fijians. Racially lesser, in that those of the "native" ancestry should on grounds of race, and race alone, be accorded privileges over Indo-Fijians, privileges embedded in our out-dated tribal systems that defy democracy and social mobility.

Privilege based on race, supported by a controlling, self-interested tribal elite is of-course a nonesense today and serves as one of the fictions that keep the divisions that periodically erupt into these coups, alive. It is interesting to note that these divisions also exist in other Polynesian nations and that in the last census in the largest of these, New Zealand, many rejected such artificial divisions and called themselves simply "New Zealanders", as opposed to Maori or Chinese or Indian or Fijian or European New Zealanders. In time, it will dawn on others that if national cohension and peace is to be maintained then racial discrimination has to be abolished along with its supporting mechanisms and that the fears that one race will dominate over another need to be addressed in a democractic constitution that treat all the same under the law while entrenching safeguards that still ensure that cultural and indeed individual distinctiveness can flourish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.163.155 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Britain & Fiji

In Fiji do you guys still like the British? the Queen was on TV the other nite and said she still loves Fiji and misses the lands and people so much..

--[[[User:SunderlandNation|Miller]] 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]--

Does Fiji acknowledge QEII as soverign? It seems so, but that should definetely be mentioned in the "poltics of Fiji" if so. --V. Joe 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Fiji is a republic - has been since 1987. The Great Council of Chiefs continues to recognize Elizabeth as its most senior chief - a role she has never repudiated. But that is a position within Fiji's chiefly hierarchy, subordinate to the republican constitution, and does not signify any political authority, any more than her honorary citizenship of the United States gives her any political status there. Were she to visit Fiji, she would be given the seat of honour at the Great Council of Chiefs, could presumably vote as a member of the Great Council (though her vote would count for no more than those of her fellow-chiefs), and would be accorded all the respect due to the Paramount Chief. Fiji's banknotes and national motto still feature the Queen, for emotional and historical reasons : she still has the deep love of the Fijian people, from what I can gather. David Cannon 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

David, I think the question was a less techical question than the answer. There is widespread respect for the British in Fiji, we never went through an anti-colonial phase, like many other former colonies.

Umm One Sided Much?

Completely over the top with the comments on democracy and elections, something must be done.

Exactly what comments on democracy and elections are "over the top"? Please clarify. David Cannon 10:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this article address fijian citizens as Fiji Islanders? I believe that is the correct term, as per the constitution. This term encompases all ethnic groups. The term Fijian is ambiguous in this context...ethnic group v citizenship

hi!!

Hi im kumarnator, and im sort of new to Wikipedia.However, the other day, a native fijian told me that there were no such things as "fiji indians", and that there were only indians and fijians. Anyway, i totally disagree with what he said as the so called "indian" population gave many things things to fiji, such as more than half of schools and land and finally independence through politicians such as Sidiq Koya and R.D Patel. Therefore, i believe i think that all"indians" should be indo-fijian in respect and remebrence to their massive contributions to the country ( even though many natives have stupidly forgotten)!!!!! Anywayz, what do youse think???? 124.184.232.70 11:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

what relevance is this to the article? How are these comments helpful to making it better? I'm proposing that this be deleted. --Xorkl000 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in, I have some sympathy with your opinions. Having said that, an NPOV encyclopedia like Wikipedia has no business taking sides in emotionally charged debates. Race/culture/ethnicity/ etc. is a very emotional issue - not only in Fiji. Just try calling a Scotsman an Englishman - you'd better be wearing something to protect your nose! Wikipedia policy and rules REQUIRE all articles to be strictly neutral. There's nothing wrong with QUOTING various points of view, however, provided that they are attributed to verifiable authoritative sources, and that no one point of view is promoted over any of the others. What to call Fijian citizens of Indian origin (Indo-Fijians or Fiji Indians, for example) is a case in point. David Cannon 12:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing

I edited the article a little bit and have a couple of comments. Reference links should be place at the end of sentences if possible and not link to particular phrases. A lot of words can be deleted by writing active sentences instead of "it is documented that..." I know it sounds harsh, but please know that I do appreciate everyone who contributed to the page. Just something to keep in mind when editing. Xiner 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

very good edits --Xorkl000 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Military Dictatorship

Given reports that the military has disarmed police, set up road-blocks and restricted the movements of the Prime Minister - all after having threatened to topple the democratic government. At what time do we say that as a matter of fact Fiji is a military dictatorship? Xtra 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It becomes a military dictatorship when the power of the military is not effectively contested. As of 1.50am, the Prime Minister remains at large so there's still hope, but I must admit it's shrinking by the hour. Three Australian warships off the coast of Fiji - and not doing a bloody thing about it ... they just came as spectators to have fun watching the unfolding tragedy. Excuse my French, but it makes me feel sick and causes me to wonder what the commonwealth and the SPF are for. David Cannon

Nope, as of 7 PM New Zealand time (6 PM Fijian) on the 5th of december, the military and Mr. Bananarama have control of Fiji. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.101.107 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

"Military dictatorship" would certainly be prematurely POV at this point, as it implies a certain permanence and at this time Bainimarama's intentions are far from clear. I do however think that this incident certainly deserves its own article; perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than I could write one? VoiceOfReason 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Military coup

The portion should be summarised considering that there's already a wiki on this. 210.7.6.227 12:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to appear currently, as it looks liek someone has copied and pasted the Mount Rushmore National Park wiki into it.

history

Why is there no history on fiji? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.139.102.182 (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

International Bans

Well when People dont know what exactly is happening in our Beautiful Country should not comment on it...Whatever Happened, Happened for a reason and Instead of trying to find out the Real reason for the Coup they start to Ban fiji from the Commonwealth and Pulling their Aid out is not the right thing to do and and these Countries must understand that this is not like the Coup of 2000 where there was Bloodshed and lives were lost but a Peaceful one.No need to Impose Bans on our Country specially trade and Sports cause you Would Only be Hurting the Grassroots People who had No Part in the Coup'. Comet Styles--Cometstyles 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Current government?

What is Fiji's current government...can it still be described as a Republic with the military in control or is it effectively a military dictatorship/junta now? UKWiki 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Still a bit early to call it a dictatorship/junta. The military commander has handed executive authority back to the President. (Ratu Josefa Iloilo) [1] And has since been sworn in as the new Interim Prime Minister, retaining his role as the Commander of the armed forces.[2]

De jure, it means a lot. De facto, it means that Bainimarama's only changed his title and moved his office. The whole manoeuvre is just a shame which leaves complete power in his hands - with the added cloak of pseudo-legitimacy now that the President has formally appointed him. BTW, I downloaded the Presidential address from Fiji Television yesterday. It was very telling. While the President was liturgically reading his statement, a man in uniform (most likely Bainimarama himself) was hovering in the background. I don't think he was meant to be in the picture, but appeared in one corner of the newsreel. Hmm. I'll bet Ratu Iloilo was pressured into reading that statement. David Cannon 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential for Genocide raised

Rather than discuss this on several different pages, please see Talk:2006_Fijian_coup_d'état#Genocide_Potential.-gadfium 23:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out the facts and structures identified behind genocide.RoddyYoung 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The deleted text that gadfium is trying to bury

With Fiji's Armed forces made up of 99% Native Fijians, in a population divided approximately equally between Fijian Indian and Native Fijian, the international concern and the United Nations interest is firmly on the prevention of genocide as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect in January 1951. RoddyYoung 00:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)