Talk:Quality of Nationality Index

Untitled

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have finally created my first page in the spirit of contributing to more information on this topic, hope you like it! Please help to make it better. GlobeClimber (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

Paraphrasing

I am reviewing the close-paraphrasing issue in this article. It is hard to express the actual methodology for calculating the score unless reverting to more general language; in the reader's interest, is it not better to remain as specific as possible even if it means integrating the methodology as presented on the actual index site itself? There is no copyright associated with this as far as I can see on their website; also, this is in the public domain. Any input much appreciated! GlobeClimber (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would argue similarly, believe that the close-paraphrasing template does not make a lot of sense here. Can I suggest deleting it? Waterpr8f (talk) 09:44, 04 July 2019 (UTC)

Highly dubious claim about nationality

The article contains the text: "Being a national of any country is a random consequence of birth, showing no correlation with a person's achievements, ideas, feelings, and desires." This posits two truth claims: that nationality is accidental and that it does not affect a person's "achievements, ideas, feelings, and desires".

This statement is demonstrably wrong on both counts. Due to the existence of immigration, nationality is not EXCLUSIVELY an accident of birth, but is often the result of a choice. Australia's population is currently over 20% foreign-born, for example, and at times in the past, the US has been as high as 30% foreign-born! Thus, being native-born from a given place is an accident, but since that is not the sole basis of nationality, it does not logically follow that nationality, itself, is an accident.

Furthermore, the contention that nationality -- being from a given place -- shows no correlation with a person's achievement, ideas, etc literally ignores the existence of this little thing called...culture.

Being from a place absolutely does affect the ideas, feelings, and even achievements of a person.

I'm deleting this statement and its inline citation on the grounds that it's laughably and obviously false. I replaced it with a more temperate and factually supportable statement that better conveys the sense of what the author was trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.59.44.65 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, but as an IP user you are not in a good position to make such edits, which I have reverted for now, much less to delete factual references. I appreciate, like everyone, good contributions and I have no issues with rephrasing in the spirit of making the article better, but struggle with deleting the reference to the Economist. Perhaps re-insert with the source. GlobeClimber (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm back. I took at look at this IP edit and I note several issues. I have followed the Economist article link in question, perused it fully, and I can vouch that it does not cite or support the text that is being disputed, "Being a national of any country is a random consequence of birth, showing no correlation with a person's achievements, ideas, feelings, and desires." Not only the letter of those lines, but also even their spirit is absent from the Economist material provided. If I err in this, please point out to the specific material in the Economist article that provides the missing support.

Thus, the citation is a non-sequitur that does not relate to the material and should therefore be deleted out of hand, irrespective of the merit of that disputed text. Non-sequitur links should always be deleted as they only confuse, rather than inform.

Furthermore, on the question of the text, itself, I side with Mr. Anonymous here. Due to the existence of culture, being a national of a country is clearly correlated with a person's achievements, ideas, feelings, and desires. Therefore, this line should be deleted because:

1) It is factually wrong.

2) The in-line citation does not support it and is, essentially, a red herring.

I will now perform the necessary correction by deleting this line and citation. Unless you have another citation you'd like to furnish that actually DOES support this text, as the Economist one does not?

ADDENDUM: For reference (no pun intended), the URL to the Economist article is here: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/06/02/a-new-ranking-of-every-countrys-citizenship — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilHudson82 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment on elaborate changes made by PhilHudson82

Everyone appreciates thorough contributions, and a valuable section on criticism for this artcile and index is equally a welcome addition. However, your remarks and claims go way beyond this and are highly subjective, I would appreciate if you post these on the talk page for discussion with other editors first, before amending an article that has been thoroughly researched by myself and others. As for your specific edits, these do not add to either the substance nor add to a balanced view for the reader. I would like to encourage you to research, review and source these with diligence first, before amending the article itself. Please also note the article page is not a forum for personal opinions, and it is not up to us to challenge the work the article refers to, but rather to make sure it represents a balanced and referenced representation. It is in this spirit that I would have reverted your edits, but another user beat me to it.

As for your specific comments: this Index is looking at nationalities (sovereign nations) not states. According to the authors, the weighting factors, the size of a country and how many languages are spoken in a country, do not matter for this index. This index does not highlight just the travel freedom for small versus large countries, it has many different other factors that are accounted for. Please refer to the graphic I had included: Diversity of Travel, Settlement freedom, Diversity of Settlement Freedom, Economic strength, Human Development, Peace and Stability.

You mention that the EU can become one country, which is highly unlikely and a bit more work than just an “administrative change” as you call it. Therefore, this is just hypothetical and not relevant for this article. The QNI methodology does not make any mention of EU countries being accounted for individually and then again as a whole (EU). The EU consists of several sovereign nations, within which EU citizens enjoy the freedom of travel as part of the European Single Market. America, on the other hand, consists of many states; this is very different and therefore, the USA is accounted for as one nation, which seems and remains very plausible.

Your whole section about the governmental reign of the EU and the EU parliament does not belong here, and if at all, would perhaps better fit on the European Union Wikipedia page. Your remarks about ulterior motives and “serious questions” of Henley & Partners are purely hypothetical and not relevant for this article. Your claim that the creators of the QNI, have specifically selected European countries to be at the top of this Index is an unsubstantiated accusation and does not belong here, either.

It seems to me, you are rather focused on the number of countries somebody can 'freely' visit with a specific nationality. There are other Indexes that are perhaps more suitable to review, please also have a look at The Passport Index or the Henley Passport Index.

In conclusion, when making subjective edits like this one, please keep this to the talk page first and discuss these with other editors before you put something on the live Wikipedia article. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. GlobeClimber (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I will grant you that the tone of the writing was overly subjective and adversarial. I will rework the material and re-insert it. You are not correct in thinking that the darker imputations made about Henley partners are immaterial to the QNI, however. When impeaching any information source, which is really all that the QNI is, it's always relevant, and in fact imperative, to know where the information is coming from. Message and messenger are inseparable in a case such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilHudson82 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Economist article you so kindly provided does implicitly support my argument about European double-counting artificially boosting the scores of European countries, to whit:

"In 2015 all of the top 32 spots were European, boosted by economic integration and the right to free movement and work. Germany’s position at the top reflects its stability, economic strength and the ability of its citizens to travel and work in strong and stable economies elsewhere."

I will use this article to bolster my argument about Schengen inflating scores of the Eurozone. Thank you for your assistance.

UDP

I have tagged this article {{undisclosed paid}}; it has been heavily targeted by the GlobeClimber/KraYa sockfarm and suffers from promo issues. This is confirmed UPE, I can provide more detail to OTRS members on request. Blablubbs|talk 09:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Dubious rankings

It not surprising that the Channel Islands are last, as they were not ranked: Jersey and Guernsey are ranked and much higher in the table. Meanwhile it is dubious to have Denmark ranked 3rd given it is behind France (1st), Germany (=2nd) and the Netherlands (also =2nd) 21:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:7B17:8101:97C:B9EB:1430:FA36 (talk)

It's also odd that there are two Latvias in the table, one scoring 77.0% and the other 30.8%. Maproom (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Several other rankings are also highly dubious. Iraq ahead of Colombia, for example. 24.222.25.34 (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)