Talk:List of countries by literacy rate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notes

HDIItalic text 2006 report must be used,the data used in this article is very old.

Update to 2009 HDR needed

Someone please update the maps by using the figures from the 2009 Human Development Report. I can update the table, but doing the maps would be difficult, as I don't have those wide range of colours available to me. Thanks. A Fantasy (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken

This whole Wiki article is broken and should be deleted.

i see that the literacy rate for US is listed as 99.9% but i do believe that CIA World Fact Book lists it as 97%. Is there a reason for this? Any Feelings? (zro) 192.203.222.60

Probably, the Cia World Fact Book is more accurate, since the United Nations Development Programme Report often uses estimations. --Patrick-br ^msg 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, the CIA World Fact Book says it is 99%. I quote: Literacy:

definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 99%

male: 99%

female: 99% (2003 est.)

---- (someone please put the signature timestamp thing here... I have no idea how to do it)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.67.46 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2006

The CIA World Factbook used 1979 figures for that "97%" number (ie, it used to have a 1979 year by that number). I don't know where the 2003 estimate came from, but the usual US measures use effective grade level rather than a yes/no on whether the person can read and write at some level. So I wouldn't be surprised if there were no studies between 1979 and 2003 that measured the actual literacy rate in the US. -- KarlHallowell 11:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Germany has about 4 million illiterate people @ 82 million inhabitants. These constitute 4.8% rather than 0.1% of the population. Also, from my personal observations, I dare to very much doubt the literacy numbers listed for the USA (99.9% and 97%, respectively). 85-90% literacy looks rather realistic. Similarly, the numbers for Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria are very optimistic.

From the first paragraph: Because definitions and data collection methods vary across countries, literacy estimates should be used with caution. UN Report. --Patrick-br ^msg 13:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am having hard time believing that the literacy rate in the USA is 99.9%. There were so many other statistics putting the literacy rate in the USA as low as 84%.

As a side note, at some point it was so bad (as found by a specific study) that the Royal Canadian Air Farce (a satirical show) joked that only 4 in 7 Americans receive a High School diploma, but it is nothing compared to the fact that only 1 in 3 of those can actually read what it says.

Wikipedia itself lists USA's literacy rate to be (optimistic) 97% and the graph on this page shows USA to be under 95-99% bracket instead of 100% (99.9%+?) bracket. OTOH the Wikipedia article of literacy says: In the United States alone, one in seven people (i.e., over 40 million people) can barely read a job offer or utility bill, which arguably makes them functionally illiterate in a developed country such as the US - G3, 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with this one, rather than the table. Skinnyweed 18:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, these figures tend to give biased viewpoints on exactly how literate people in these countries are. I bet the qualifying level is 'how to write your name correctly' because more than 0.1% are defunct in literacy. Skinnyweed 18:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If so many countries have 99.9% literacy rate (which I doubt) perhaps it should be rounded to two or three decimal places stargate70

Shouldn't Estonia be 22nd instead of 2nd? I like Radiohead

USA Literacy Rate

The article states, "In 1992 the USA conducted a big National Adult Literacy Survey. According to the National Institute of Literacy". This is true and important to include, but a few caveats are in order. In my experience, the test was very poorly made and seemed designed to generate the highest illiteracy rate possible. I took one of the sections of a sample test which was provided to US newspapers, and I failed the section on reading a bus schedule. I'm literate (advanced degree, Ivy League undergrad), polyglot (I've read literature in ten languages) and a frequent user of public transportation in many countries and several languages. Nonetheless, I found the table impossible to read and felt that a good number of the answers provided were incorrect.

I don't know enough about this federal organization to say anything with authority, but based on this published sample, I suspect it is not a disinterested party in the debate about literacy. To justify its mandate, and budget, it most likely wishes to have figures showing a very high number of adults who are unable to read.

When it comes to international comparisons, it's essential to remember that there is no standard definition of literacy and that many nations rely on self-reporting: in the census, people are often asked "Can you read and write" or even "Can you read and write your name", and the answer for this question is then simply accepted.

Many Europeans gleefully latch on to this figure about the US but then fail to critically examine how literacy numbers are generated in their own countries. Many European countries have sizeable immigrant populations from poor countries in which illiteracy is very common. It's surprising, therefore, that these populations apparently do no exceed 0.01% of the general population. When I've raised this matter in casual conversations with European friends, they tend to respond, "Ah, but those people are Somalis/Turks/Berbers/Pakistanis/Kurds/Nepalis, not real Swedes/Germans/French/Italians/Britons, so they don't count." Non-citizens, including those without legal papers, most certainly did count in the National Adult Literacy Survey (as they should have), and this also needs to be borne in mind. Interlingua ^{talk email} 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've never met, where I live, an illiterate person of sound mind over 8 years old and that's with relatives living in rural, high unemployment areas. What comes to immigrants from non-EU countries, literacy and adequate language skills are part of the residency requirements. Non permanent refugees are a different matter, though, as they're only temporarily here and thus not really part of the actual population. The way general literacy rate is mainly assessed here is through PISA and other OECD tests (and national studies) - All of which point at USA having disproportionate number of people with low scores even if the average score can be classified as ok. - G3, 10:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The USA also accepts far more immigrants than most other countries on the list. Therefore, measuring "adult literacy" in the USA is as much a test of the educational system of other countries as it is of America. A fairer comparison would only count people born and raised in the listed country, since then you are really measuring the educational potential of the country and not simply how closed their borders are. (It must be very easy to have 99.9% literacy if your country never lets in anyone from a country that's way down on the literacy list.)

Is the issue here really creating a "fair" literacy rate list? In this case fair seems to mean certain countries get their scores adjusted because they accept more immigrants? This is meant to be a measure equivalent across all borders. While perhaps there are reasons that certain countries do better or worse than some people perceive they should, the goal here is to give a relative comparison based similar criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.189.212 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I just read a report by the US Department of Education and you can find the executive summary here: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/index.asp?file=OtherResources/ExecSumAdultLitFirstLook.asp&PageId=156

They divided literacy rate into 5 groups where 5 is the best and 21-23% of Americans are in group 1 and another 25-28% in group 2. I trust this report more than others since it would be in their interest to under report illiteracy rates.

The thing with United States is that it has no official language(unfortunately) so that 99.9% includes people who are illiterate in English but literate in some other language. Lenny.

Cuba and Barbados

Are you seriously telling me that Cuba,Barbados,Armenia,Slovenia and such undeveloped countries got a better rank in the literacy rate than the U.S , The U.K , France and Germany? This ranking is very strange.

Barbados is a very well developed country, while Cuba is Communist, and the poor would likely have good access to education. As for Armenia and Slovenia, I also find that to be quite suspect.--142.68.167.81 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Cuba (and Venezuala - see below) these statistics are just government propaganda. I occasionally read pro-Soviet newspapers in the 1960s and I remember they claimed there was no poverty, no unemployment and no illiteracy in the USSR and no homoexsexality either! Homosexuality being a "bourgeois perversion" etc. LOL! 93.36.212.250 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Campolongo

Slovenia is considered a developed country, with GDP per capita on the level of Greece and Israel. Everybody knows the communists invested a lot on education. That's why the Eastern Europe has more elevated rates than the Western Europe. GustoBLSJP (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Cuban literacy statistics aren't worth the low-grade paper they are printed on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Congo

The protected table for The Republic of the Congo is null. I suspect "The" is not needed, but don't know how to fix itMzmadmike (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

fake countries

I see that in 89th position is a country called "Quagmire!", and in 177th is "Fonk!"

Fixed, that was vandalism inserted in the last few days. andy 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Other problems

Greece is in the 79th place with a literacy rate of 98%. Please check it.

Yes, but if you believe that nonsense, you also believe that Haiti has 99.9% literacy rate. UN has made itself the mouthpiece of the member states instead of figuring out what those numbers are. Probably, the EU and World Bank estimates would be a good sources to compare to these often fanciful figures, so that Greece would not be at 79th place while Haiti in the 15th!!

IRAQ? not on the list

What about the Vatican?

I read in an Atlas (couple of years old) yesterday and acording to it the Vatican had a litaracy rate 99% and a population of 1000 people. That means 10 people who can't read. According to the world factbook it has 100%. Did they teach the 10 persons to read or executed them or something to recieve a higher rank? Does anyone know anything about this? And how is Monaco doing?

The Vatican does not have population of 1000. It's more like 700 or 800. Most of the citzens of The Vatican live in Italy and hold a dual-citzenship. So it is 100% litaracy. Also the Vatican does not execute people. Monaco has 99% litaracy. 3232330 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, the Vatican does not execute people anymore. Philforrest (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Rankings

I don't have a problem with the 99.9% countries all being #1, but the next lowest group (starting with Estonia) should be 21st in my counting, then the 99.7% group (starting with Barbados) should start with 22nd, then the 99.6% group should start at 26, and so on. Or am I totally off base. I'd be happy to do the updating if people agree. --Jolomo 02:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek Literacy Rate

The only source for this article the United Nations Development Programme Report 2005 lists Greece as having a literacy rate of 91% (see page eleven list number 24 of the pdf file), however this article lists it as 97.5%. If there is evidence for a literacy rate of 97.5% in Greece it needs a citation.

Yes, but if you believe that nonsense, you also would believe that Haiti has 99.9% literacy rate!! UN has made itself the mouthpiece of the member states instead of figuring out what those numbers are. The EU and World Bank estimates would be good sources to compare to these often fanciful figures, so that Greece would not be at 79th place while Haiti in the 15th!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izady (talk • contribs) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a good point actually. Haiti along with other African states which are listed as 99% are incorrect. The source says about those countries: "In the absence of recent data, estimates from UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Institute for Statistics. 2003. Correspondence on adult and youth literacy rates. March. Montreal, based on outdated census or survey information, were used and should be interpreted with caution: Bahamas 95.8, Barbados 99.7, Comoros 56.8, Djibouti 70.3, Eritrea 60.5, Fiji 94.4, Gambia 42.5, Guinea-Bissau 44.8, Guyana 99.0, Haiti 54.8, Hong Kong, China (SAR) 94.6, Hungary 99.4, Lebanon 88.3, Poland 99.8 and Uzbekistan 99.4."

Greece however is listed correctly as 96%. Sbw01f (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

U.S. does not have 99.9 rate

This article's assertion that the U.S. has a 99.9 percent literacy rate is absurd. I spent many years working with literacy programs, teaching adults to read and I can tell you that there are literally millions of adults in America who can't read (and we're talking about native-born citizens who speak English as their first language).

Um... Personal experience probably isn't the best measure of rates of literacy (and isn't really an acceptable source for an encyclopedia). The CIA world fact book (mentioned above) is probably a better source. Nato 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it all depends on the definition of literacy so all numbers have to be taken from the same study. Jeltz talk 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some countries define literacy as "over 18 and has attended school." It doesn't specify actual literacy, graduation, nor competence. Some countries base it at age 15, others at 18. This listing is only a very general guideline.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Egypt

On December 19 2006, the Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif announced that the illiteracy rate in Egypt is 25% in 2006 (down from 29% in 2005) in contrast to 44% in the article. I think that this article is not accurate. For example, in the United States, I once saw on a television program that 50 million Americans are facing difficulties in reading. So, the percentage of the United States is not correct. --Meno25 20:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the correct number to use for Egyptian literacy in this article is 55.6% since that is what appears in the UN report. Ie, the article is supposed to list the numbers used in that report not any other figures like Nazif's figures above. Let us also keep in mind that literacy figures are notoriously incomparable. -- KarlHallowell 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

99.9% literate or literate in English?

The issue I have with the U.S. numbers is simply that there's no national American language. In Germany it's easy to ask "Can you read and write German?" It's not so cut and dried in the United States. I'm willing to bet that the majority of immigrants (legal or otherwise) in this country are fully literate in their native languages, but not in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanlund (talk • contribs)

• So what?

Germany has a shitload of Turkish people. By analogy with the ideas of Jordanlund above, if they speak Turkish but not German, they are literate. So what is right!--169.232.119.242 (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on. You're comparing the amount of foreign-language speakers in Germany to those in the U.S. There's bound to be a discrepency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.99.120 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What ever is the official language; that should be used as a measuring tool but it is up to their respective governments to make that choice. and yes there is a national de facto language in the USA it is English. 3232330 (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of Egypt and Afghanistan

I find it hard to believe that Afghanistan has a higher literacy rate than Egypt. I mean, come on, Egypt's no center of intellectual discourse (anymore), but it should in theory perform better than a war-torn, rubble-filled country that is Afghanistan. Just *how* did they derive these statistics?

And I'm still sore about Malaysia "losing" to Myanmar and Vietnam. I mean, honestly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amry (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Egypt was incorrect. I thought it was a little odd so I checked the CIA factbook, and of course the info was about 20% too low on this page. As for Vietnam, what do you expect? They're communist, everyone gets an education. Even the most undeveloped communist or former communist countries have highly educated citizens, just look at central Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiribati

Where is Kiribati? I know the literacy is something like 90%. --Indolences 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

False numbers

The issue isn't the United States listings, as mentioned by most of the comments here, but rather a very large chunk of them. The article links to a pdf of the table it uses as its source, but that table does not have information for many countries (including the United States). So who knows where it gets its numbers.

If Canada has a literacy rate of only 90 percent, why is it ranked no. 18? I suppose the number is false. ----69.159.106.243 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogosity of figures and factual accuracy

The figures quoted in this article are completely bogus. The UN article quotes nothing of the sort for these nations and I happen to know (as a trained adult literacy tutor) that the facts for Ireland are way off. I note that the UN article cited has numerous tables of figures and it looks like the wrong ones are cited. The OECD report into adult literacy rates should be much more accurate. I see this has come up repeatedly on this talk page but the problem has yet to be addressed.

Comments? - Alison ☺ 04:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Here's a link to the OECD report of 1995; the IALS report[1] - Alison ☺ 04:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are various ways to get this information or to gather statistics about it. The current page is based upon a UN report. Unless you are disputing that this reference isn't reliable - then the factual accuracy cannot be disputed. Of course its not the penultimate correct statistics - but then there will never be such a beast. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct, on the last comment. The term "literacy rate" is not clearly defined in the article; indeed, the UN are unclear about it too. Each country publishes its own stats and defines its own baseline so the whole matter is entirely subjective. The '95 OECD report defines a very clear baseline standard of literacy and applies it across the board. As an adult literacy tutor from Ireland, I know that the Irish figures are completely off the mark and organisations like NALA[2] paint a very different story - Alison ☺ 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the trouble here is that you have a far more strict definition of literacy - please see Literacy - iirc the UN data uses the UNESCO definition "Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society." - the means for information gathering is defined at the top of the report. That you personally have another definition or more strict definition of literacy doesn't make either the UN report - nor yours, the most correct one.

To label something with "factual accuracy disputed", you would have to actually suspect that the data is faked or significantly slanted/biased, something which i do not think that you do.

Personally i think that you may be correct in assessing that the level of literacy required in the UN report, has little value when applied to developed countries, and is more useful in assessing development in the developing countries. But that doesn't make it factually incorrect.

Please do not readd the disputed tag unless you truly believe that the UN data is faked or severely slanted/biased. --Kim D. Petersen 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what might be wrong with the UN data, assuming that Wikipedia's literacy chart accurately reflects that source, but this is not a question of definitions. By your own definition of literacy--i.e., "Literacy is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society." According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, which compares 1993 and 2003 data, 14% of the adult US population has "less than basic" literacy, meaning that these people are capable of "no more than the most simple and concrete literacy skills." See: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp

This certainly indicates that these 30 million American adults fall below your most level of literacy, and cannot in fact be considered literate by any reasonable definition.76.229.145.192 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)S. Hendrix

The definition of "literacy rate" by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy is not the same definition as in the UN report. Its not that hard. For a global literacy assessment - you have other demands as for a national one. You need to measure different things. --Kim D. Petersen 11:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there's a large number of countries for which no literacy rate is given in the UN report. For example, the first ten in the table have no literacy rate given: Norway, Iceland, Australia, Luxomburg, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Belgium, and the United States. Only one country, Italy of the first 20 on the UN table has an entry. Further, Georgia which doesn't have an entry in the UN table is currently listed as having a literacy rate of 100.0% despite placing well into the list of "medium human development" countries in the UN table (from a glance at similar former USSR republics, it's literacy would probably be no better than 99.5%). Where are those numbers coming from? -- KarlHallowell 13:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See footnote d (which is also in the current version). A value of 99.0% is set for the countries that are marked with .. in the original table (as per the report). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The value was assumed as 99.0% for the purposes of calculating HDI only, not as actual estimate of the literacy rate for these countries. That's why it says ".." instead of claiming 99%. To compare an assumed value that wasn't even listed to measured values is inaccurate and not what the author of the report intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanrmiller (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Australia is not on this list? Yet it is shaded in as 95-100% on the map?... --Borgarde^talk 10:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected - must have fallen out. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

UNESCO definition

This is probably the definition used in the table:

Adult illiteracy (rates for adults above 15 years of age) reflects both recent levels of educational enrolment and past educational attainment. In so far as possible, data refer to the proportion who cannot, with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement on everyday life. Source: UN Common Database (UNESCO estimates) [3]

--Kim D. Petersen 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

According to the UN report cuba should be ranked 52. However it is ranked 22 on the page. The source provided says nothing about cuba, it's about Romania. Vandalism? Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

United States Literacy Rate Isn't Wrong...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html

99% for both males and females (above age 14, I believe it was). Quit bickering about it, now.

65.255.130.104 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because it says it's a 'fact' doesn't mean it's a fact.

Check this 'fact'.. it makes more 'sense' to me... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismartinbrisbane (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

I can't find the UK on this list, nor any of her constituent nations. It is, however, coloured on the map to suggest a Literacy rate of 95-100%. The CIA World Factbook suggests 99% for the United Kingdom, but this is defined as age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling, and does not, necessarily, relate to literacy. Does anyone have a source for the actual literacy rate of the UK, and its relative position? 62.49.22.228 04:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2007/2008 data

Updated the page with the new UNDP data from the 2007/2008 report. Please do not enter CIA world fact book etc. data on top of this - as it is (at the moment) unlikely to be newer than the ones on the page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What's this phrase supposed to mean?

"For purposes of calculating the HDI, a value of 99.0% was applied."

What's this supposed to mean? If some of the HDI values are the result of generous estimates and not of actual statistics, should they be taken into account at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.72.47 (talk • contribs)

First of all there is no reason to believe that they are based on "generous estimates" - second HDI has no real influence on the literacy figures (its the other way around HDI is based on this). But the introduction blurb (from the UNEP) states that these are high-income countries that no longer run this particular statistics. (for instance the US and UK). Since its both documented in the text and in the footnotes - i see no problem. (note btw. that the CIA world fact book uses the same figures (just older)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nb: Please sign your posts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

100%?

The list states Georgia's literacy rate at 100%. How is it possible that not 1 person in the country is illiterate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.167.81 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is probably the case for many of the countries which currently state 99+% as well. It depends on the definitions of literacy. As said before (on this talk), the metric used here is probably not very useful for industrialized countries. See the UNDP definitions for the specifics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the ranking system, it looks like Georgia's ranking is bogus. Not only is a 100% literacy rate extremely suspect, but why would the three countries with 99.7% literacy rate (Cuba, Estonia, Latvia) be ranked as tied with a country with 100% literacy rate? The answer, I think, is given by the fact that the fifth country is ranked #4; all the rankings below it are also offset by one. It looks like someone added Georgia at the top, gave it a 100% literacy rate, and forgot to adjust the rankings of the other countries! 98.255.1.193 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela literacy rate

In 2005, the Venezuelan government declared the country free of illiteracy with less than 2 percent of the population not knowing how to read or write, you can find the news article here (only available in spanish). Please change the rank of Venezuela and their colour in the map. Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest Department of Education Study

January 10, 2009. DoE released a study showing literacy in the United States at 86 percent. 1 in 7 cannot read. The study is based on 2003 data which is the latest available. Felipe (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy See

It has a population of less than 1000 people. Is it really necessary to list? Sbw01f (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. It's not listed in the UN report either. Sbw01f (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An Origin of writing? Missing?

Iraq seems to be missing an entry and, as one of the places at which writing was invented, it deserves one. I only mention this because Dr Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel mentions it as quite low; now that its been brought to my attention, it really is a glaring omission. Please fix ASAP (sources might not have any reliable information, due to the problems in the Middle East.

NonChalance (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgia

Why isn't Georgia on the list anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.90.148 (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Georgia's data and ranking appear to have been manipulated. See discussion above under "100%??". 98.255.1.193 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Afganistan?

im suprised Afganistan isnt on the list i think it should be added Saturn star (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that there is a lack of data on Afganistan. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate entry: Brazil

Brazil is ranked both at 85th place and 95th place. Which one is correct? Please check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buriti (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Something to note:

If Georgia has a literacy rate of 100 percent, does it mean that everybody in Georgia is able to read a book and write (but in Georgian)???

1. REDIRECT List of countries by literacy rate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yjfstorehouse (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority

The number stated (99.8%) is wrong, according to the source it cites (http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1624/book1624_0303.pdf). This source puts literacy rates at 92.7% for the West Bank and 94.3% for the Gaza Strip as of 2007. No population totals or aggregate data is listed. I found another source (http://www.pcbs.pna.org/Portals/_pcbs/PressRelease/census2007_e.pdf) which lists the relative population size (62.3% in West Bank and 37.7% in Gaza Strip) and calculated my own aggregate value of 93.3% overall literacy. Is making this simple calculation acceptable as a source of information for wikipedia? (I'm new to editing.) Is there a way I can clarify this in the citation other than just citing the second source? Brianrm (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I explained the calculation and cited both sources in a footnote. If I should have done something differently, please tell me. Brianrm (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Incompatible figures

At times people add or change the list with some survey or census information for an individual country or countries. This won't work, since there are several different methodologies and metrics for measuring this. So the figures will be incompatible with the figures in this list. If the list should be changed, then a complete survey is needed. In other words: It is not that the figures are wrong - just that they are (with a high likelihood) incompatible with the figures already listed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest India literacy rate

The latest literacy rate in India is 74.04 (as is given the article itself). But the map was not changed accordingly. It still shows India as an orange state with literacy in between 60-70%. But it should be yellow with literacy 70-80% range. Can someone please take care of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.40.115 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

update tag needed

An "updated" tag is needed in this article to update its data according to last HDR 2011 (Human Development Report) issued on Nov-02-2011.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there, I updated the page with 2011 statistics from the HDR. A few of the countries (mainly Asian ones) weren't listed so I left them with the same numbers. It's pretty up to date. I really hope someone can update the graph. --Turn685 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Turn685 Hi, thanks for updating. The map is not updated yet. Could you please change the colors of the countries according to the updated you made? For instance, Nepal has around 68.2%, and the map is old and shows around 30%.Seaboy123 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Seaboy, I updated Nepal and Bhutan. If there's any other countries that need adjusting, please let me know. Thanks --Turn685 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I was checking the HDR tables because spot 65 is missing in our table and discovered that several of the values in the 2011 report do not match the ones in this article. If I have time, I will fix this or somebody else is invited to take the time to address this serious issue.Dhall27 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Rank

I'm curious. Why do they stay at 20 for all the nations at 99% but abruptly resumes linear counting? United States, the last ranked at 20th, for example, is followed by Italy which is ranked 46th. Even Estonia and Latvia, both at 99.8%, are ranked as 3rd and 4th respectively. Shouldn't they be both at 3rd? Any good reason for it or was it because data from HDI's were merely inferred? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The rank numbers now look complete nonsense, where a number of countries are ranked 10, still followed by a number 11. That system is followed throughout the list. This happened 16 March 2012, so if someone would like to correct that edit, it would make the list better, not the least from a mathematical point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomalhaut76 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Why does Sri Lanka appear twice on the list? ~ Tropicalsundae (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This article violates Wikipedia verifiability criteria

The literacy rate for most wealthy, developed countries is given as "99%" in the absence of any evidence for that number, and despite good evidence that the real literacy rates are much lower.

"Literacy" is not a precise term, but I very much doubt whether, on any defensible standard of literacy, there is any country which really has a literacy rate of 99%. For example in the USA, the National Center for Education Statistics estimated that about 1 in 7 Americans were illiterate in 2003: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/overview.aspx Similarly, the Leitch Report (the details are available on Wikipedia) concluded that the literacy rate in Britain was about 85% in 2005. Both of these countries are listed as having "99%" literacy rate in the table. These numbers are surely pure fiction, and have no place in Wikipedia.

Barbacana (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the term "literacy" isn't well-defined. For example, some sources hold literacy to advanced reading and writing and others consider "functional literacy," such as the ability to read bus schedules, write basic instructions, etc. I agree that the first fifty ranks or so make no factual contribution. If there is an alternate study that both considers developed countries and covers as many countries as the UN report, this page should be updated. Until then, the page at least offers a useful comparison of literacy rates among the less-developed nations of the world.Dhall27 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:V is upheld 100% - since the source is defined as the UNDP 2011 literacy index. But that aside, it is correct, that literacy is defined differently across sources, which is why updates with non-compatible sources, should be reverted immediately. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This apparently hasn't been done - so feel free to revert back to the last data-point where the list was in sync with the UNDP report. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopia literacy rates are above 60% 2010

The map needs to be updated, Ethiopia literacy is well above 60%. (2010)--Inayity (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Try to give some wp:sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

US Literacy rate

While I am not an expert on the subject and I haven't had the opportunity to do extensive research - the current listing for the US literacy rate is inaccurate

United States 

Literacy All: 100% Literacy Males: 100% Literacy Females: 100%

Even more telling is that most countries base literacy for age 12+ however the statement is that the US literacy rate is based on people age 6 and over can read and write (2003 est.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.209.77 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The literacy rates for the US and all of the developed countries seem vastly inflated, and the CIA world factbook seems biased towards first-world countries. A casual google search gives the literacy rate as 86%, so at least the US seems very wrong. RC Howe (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it very intriguing that someone is eager to try and discredit the CIA by citing a "casual google search" as a somehow more reliable source.65.30.149.192 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Female Literacy rate in Bolivia

I suppose that the data written is wrong: it is impossible to have only 1% female literacy rate, with an overall rate of 83%.157.27.252.39 (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Corrected - case of vandalism removed. Thx. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

List by Literacy Rate

Good day. I am of the opinion that the difference in literacy rates between males and females should be stated as an absolute number. Using negative numbers when the literacy rate of females is higher than that of males appears like being sexist.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate&action=edit&section=8#

Please fix the obviously incorrect data.

As others have already stated, much of the information in this chart is wrong, with an obvious bias given towards first world countries. The U.S. does not have anywhere near a 99% literacy rate, especially not if you consider age versus reading level. This article uses one source, a C.I.A. report. This is the type of article people can use to discredit Wikipedia as a reliable resource. Why is there no challenge link on this article? Please update it according to recent, unbiased data and multiple sources.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html

http://www.begintoread.com/research/literacystatistics.html

http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/

§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlope014 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is late but the article refers to basic literacy rates, not functional or advanced literacy. As such all developed countries would have 98-99% in basic literacy and there is a reliable source to back this up. Cadiomals (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I support the above claim that information from a CIA factbook is unreliable. This Wikipedia article on literacy begins with the following statement:

This is a list of countries by literacy rate.

The word literacy has an internal link to a Wikipedia article about literacy, and the first sentence says: Literacy is traditionally understood as the ability to read and write.

A Huffington Post article dated 2013 about literacy levels in the United States, it says: According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14 percent of the population. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html

How reliable is this Wikipedia article about literacy? Denghu (talk)

The literacy rate for the U.S. is listed as 9%

Really? And the CIA World Factbook site does say that it's 99% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html#xx) but as stated in other posts, this might be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virajos (talk • contribs) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it listed at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.241.67.45 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook no longer list the US or indeed other highly developed countries. UNESCO have no history of estimates either. Jolly Ω Janner 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This article has a serious problem with random IPs coming in and tweaking information without sources which no one notices and does anything about

I have requested this article be IP blocked indefinitely but please keep a better look out.

Literacy in developed countries

This article is largely drawn from a single source, the CIA Factbook and follows its approach of suggesting that essentially everyone in developed countries is literate.

"For highly developed/high income countries where literacy statistics were not collected, a rate of 99% was assumed."

There has been concern in a number of countries that this is not the case. Reputable educational bodies have put the figure at 95% in the UK, 96% in Australia and disturbingly 86% in the USA. Yet a number of edits, such as mine a few months back, which try to put alternatives to official blandness and have been properly referenced, have been quickly reverted and even described as vandalism.

General statistics from UNESCO, the official source, are no better: some developed countries refuse to supply figures. So incremental improvement where studies are available seems the only possibility. If there is an unevenness in the definitions, it's there already, even if not acknowledged.

So is there any way of presenting more meaningful figures? Chris55 (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does the claim "For highly developed/high income countries where literacy statistics were not collected, a rate of 99% was assumed" come from? It's not in the linked CIA factbook page; they give these values as "estimates", not mentioning a mere assumption AFAICS. Lots of developed countries (and even others, like Cuba) have literacy rates above 99%, some even 100%. 99% seems rather conservative to me for developed countries; e.g. your U.S. source uses a definition of "literacy" probably far above world standards, so the lower rate is not surprising. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

School attendance

How is the proportion the population age 15 and over [that] has ever attended school remotely relevant to the proportion that are literate? If somebody has attended school for one day in their life, they are considered to be literate? Really? Surely those countries for which we do not hold verifiable literacy figures should be marked NA. Including all those where our only source is an assumed figure drawn from the CIA World Factbook. Skinsmoke (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1