This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fiji, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fiji on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FijiWikipedia:WikiProject FijiTemplate:WikiProject FijiFiji articles
This article on the 1987 coup suggested that it resulted in the depositionof Queen Elizabeth as Fiji Queen.Thi is out right false as Fiji gained Independence from Brittain in 1970 and was no longer under the rule of the Queen.The coup took place in 1987-17 years after the deed of cession as as such has completely no bearing whatso ever on the deposition of the Queen.
Austin, I'm sorry, but it is POV to call the Fijian system apartheid. There was NO policy of "separate development" which was the cornerstone of apartheid. To be sure, the political rights of Indo-Fijians were restricted, which is as morally repugnant to me as it is to any decent person, but in an NPOV encyclopedia, we need to be very careful about pinning labels on people, movements, or ideas. None of those responsible for implementing Fiji's discriminatory constitution called the policy "apartheid"; its opponents did (and still do); that's their POV with which I agree but which must be reported, rather than stated. There is a difference between the two. Stating a POV means to say that something IS so; reporting a POV means to attribute it to an external source. To say that the Commonwealth, the Indian government, and human rights organizations called Fiji's 1990 constitutional provisions "aparthied" is an objective fact and therefore NPOV; but to say that it was aparthied is POV. I hope this helps. By the way, you've done a lot of work on this article and have made a very good job of it. Keep up the great work! David Cannon 22:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree that the use of "apartheid" is strictly POV, personally, as it describes a "policy of racial segregation" and has no inherent negative connotations except with those who detest it in the first place (such as you and I). The term was (and still is) almost universally applied to the Rabuka regime (usually with negative connotations, granted); our apartheid article even had an entire subsection titled "Apartheid in Fiji" until its anonymous removal a few weeks ago.
Nonetheless, I'd sooner err slightly on the side of appeasement than instigate an edit war, so I'll leave it be. I do, however, recommend that you be less patronizing in the future, as insulting someone's intelligence is hardly the best way to come to an amicable agreement. (For the record, I'm glad to see that you've picked up where I had planned to continue with Fiji before being sidetracked by life. Cheers!) Austin Hair 22:16, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, Austin. I didn't mean to "insult your intelligence," as you put it. I was only trying to explain why I edited as I did - which is what I would expect of anyone editing anything written by me. Re-reading what I wrote, I can see that my wording could be interpreted as somewhat patronizing, and for that I apologise. David Cannon 22:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Minor nitpick and question. I agree that the paragraph:
The theory has been put forth that the United States, worried for the future of nuclear testing in the Pacific, had the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrate the revolt against Bavadra, an outspoken opponent of nuclear proliferation. No evidence has been presented to substantiate this theory, however, and it has little support among educated commentators.
is balanced and NPOV by itself. However, should it really be included with the article? As stated, there is no evidence whatsoever, making this little more than a weak conspiracy theory.
--Viper Daimao14:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it exists without credible evidence is reason enough for its inclusion. The fact that so many people believe it - despite lack of substantiation - means that we need to mention it, along with the fact that it is not widely accepted. Popular misconceptions remain "common knowledge" unless they are publicly debunked. Well, we cannot prove a negative, but we can point out that scholars who have researched the topic are nearly unanimous in their view that the theory is baseless. David Cannon23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
I do not agree that "Depending on perspective, one may view the event either as two successive coups d'état separated by a four-month intermission, or as a single coup begun on 14 May and completed with the declaration of the republic". Go back to basics. A coup is a sudden event. There were two sudden events. The declaration of a republic is not a coup - it is a statement by a de facto military ruler, that has neither legal nor practical effect - it was not a coup. A coup does not "end" when a republic is declared or a constitution is proclaimed to have been overthrown. There were two coups, and the purported declaration of a republic was a separate event.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
