Talk:Literacy/Archive 1

message: I added a line that clarifies the relationship between literacy and income. Sociologists argue that family income is an indicator of literacy acquistion rather than literacy acquistion causing an increase in income. Remember -- correlation is not causation.  Furthermore, this article needs continued work because it presents literacy from a narrow functional perspective. I am a certifed teacher with public school experience, have my Ph.D. in literacy, teach preservice teachers and graduate students, do inservice presentations with teachers on literacy, as well as work with parents, so I think I know what I'm talking about. I've also published nationally, and trust me, I don't make a lot of money from any of this. The bibliography needs to be updated. There has been so much published since the 1980s. In fact there is much to be updated. For example, to the homeschooler who had success with Distar, I'd love to know what other literacy practices you use in your home. I would bet that you read to your children, discuss the books, read recipes, signs, and have lots of other texts in your home. So, you're doing direct instruction through Distar, but you're also using and reinforcing literacy through authentic uses throughout your children's lives. That's what's teaching your children to read. Distar has taught your children how to decode. There's a big difference. GEJ 17 November 2005
----
I merged the article with New Literacy Studies.
----
I wanted to add some historical paragraphs on literacy through the previous 3000 years in general and in the previous 200 years in particular and make a tie-in to the history of writing and of the industrial revolution because universal literacy in industrialized countries was one of the important "late" results of the first phase of the industrial revolution and one of the major causes or facilitators of the second phase of the industrial revolution.  But I do not see why I should bother adding something to an article if there is a big sign above it saying in a global way that the neutrality of the artcile is disputed.  What is to be done? AlainV
:The article's supposedly been under dispute since 2 Jun 2003, but a lot of work has been done since then and I don't see a whole lot of disputing going on. So in light of comments like AlainV's above, I'd like to remove the NPOV header. Any objections before I do so? Bryan 01:35, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find one on a cursory exploration. However, I find that the NPOV dispute page says "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it has a NPOV." Since this article is approaching a full year with the dispute header, I think it's unlikely to be considered controversial to remove it now. :) Bryan 07:30, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004-5 talk

message: I certainly disagree that literacy enables one to successfully function in society. Many illiterates in third world countries don't bother with literacy for them and their children precisely because they cannot see the point, as they function perfectly well without being able to read and write. I have removed what I consider certain not PC terms. I do not think we should say illiterates, but illiterate people, as they are people too. This term was rude and therefore POV to my mind. --SqueakBox 16:39, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, also remember to not call them communists but communist people, Catholic people, not Catholics and stupid people, not stupid.  They are all people, after all.  Oh, but for the record, many people in the third world don't see the point in literacy not because they don't need reading and writing but because their uneducated minds can't comprehend that a better life for their children could come from it.  Of course in some areas there are very few jobs that require functional literacy..
:Sorry if I offended anyone.  Oh wait, if they're reading this I'm not talking about them anyway... ;)TastyCakes 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts

message: "The use of an ideogram based writing system makes basic literacy relatively easier to attain than the use of an alphabet based one, so it is estimated that through the more prosperous decades of her different imperial dynasties China reached very high levels of basic, functional, literacy. This made it possible for more people to communicate with one another because they shared reading and writing ability even though they they could not speak to one another."
I've removed this. The first sentence is blatantly false - alphabets are much, much easier to learn than an ideogram writing system. The idea that a writing system such as the Chinese system allows people of different spoken languages to communicate is often asserted but also often contested. Leftfist 20:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not.  It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|Infobox#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: "At one time, a literate person was one who could sign their name. At other points, literacy was measured by the ability to read the Bible." - Were people ever actually considered literate if they could sign their name?  And if someone can read the bible, I think they're literate even by the modern definition.  TastyCakes 17:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The History Section

message: Using blue for land and white for sea seems like a pretty poor decision.
:I tagged this image and put a note on the image talk page. -- Beland 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of literacy in the ancient world 

message: The first two graphs don't seem to be referred to in the text. The second one—declining rates—certainly needs explanation. Tony 06:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  graphs 

message: I'd love to see this section fleshed out, especially with some references.  I've tried looking for information and I haven't really found anything -- I even asked a professor of classics for his thoughts, and they were rather guarded on the matter.  Does anyone have a starting point for this? CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of highly literate cultures in the past 

message: This article makes no mention of 'the Big 5' and should include details of Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vacabulary, and Comprehension as well as their relationship in a balanced literacy approach.
The article literally does mention the "big 5."  See the section on teaching literacy.  Balanced literacy is not mentioned very much, so the discussion of this topic could be expanded. Kearnsdm 05:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Components of Literacy 

message: Some of this article is redundant, especially around the different approaches to reading, such as balanced literacy, whole language, and phonics.  Furthermore, this discussion is not a discussion of general literacy, but rather of English literacy.  This is not appropriate, in my view.  Obviously, English literacy is a key topic for a page written in English, but that should be focus of a particular section and links should be used to connect to pages on phonics, whole language, and balanced literacy.  
I intend to remove this redundancy very soon unless there is an objection.  
--Kearnsdm 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes Needed 

message: If anyone is an expert in how reading is taught in languages besides English, that would be great information to have.  I am especially interested to see how Chinese and hiragana are taught.  If you know, add some subsections.
--Kearnsdm 07:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition Needed - other languages 

message: There are a number of extraneous links that I could not seem to categorize.  Someone please categorize them if you understand how the fit this article, or I'm going to remove those that do not seem especially germane.  Kearnsdm 06:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting some links 

message: The link under paragraph "What does it mean to be literate?" doesn't work. Any suggestions? 83.24.28.20 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: "Although educators, politicians, and many of those with such limited reading vocabularies are considered--or consider themselves--to be literate, the most comprehensive study of U.S. adult literacy ever commissioned by the U.S. government proves that they are not literate enough to be functionally literate."
 Doesn't this make it sound like educators and politicians are functionally illiterate?  Definitely needs some rewording. FilmFemme 15:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing - but funny - sentence 

message: I learned a ways back in a class I took that during the medieval period, literacy was measured only by the ability to read and write Latin, regardless of a person's ability to read and write his or her native language.  I added this to the article in the  "Literacy throughout history" section, but I don't have a print citation for it, so if somebody could find one and add it to the article, I'd appreciate it.--Tabun1015 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literacy in terms of Latin

message: I replaced the citation tag at the top of this section because there is still not a specfiic reference provided.  
I don't understand why it was removed without a reference provided.  
Best,
Rosmoran 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation tag in Illiteracy section - reason why I put it back 

message: I removed the following statement from the "Why learning to read is hard" section:
"As a result, the only way a person can learn to read English is to learn, one-at-a-time, by rote memory or by repeated use, every word in their reading vocabulary."
There is no citation provided for this claim; more importantly, the claim is patently false. 
Best,
Rosmoran 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed factually incorrect statement

message: In reference to a previous statement involving the use of "Illiterates" or "Illiterate people," why has this not been corrected? The term "illiterates" 
gives a negative POV toward people who are illiterate, though it might not seem to be POV at first. Don't tell me no one else can see this.
172.164.128.188 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illiterates 

message: Hello...I have created a Literacy Template navbox for use on articles that deal with this subject. It's only a beginning, so I hope that people will contribute to its growth and improvement. I used the "See Also" section as a starting point, and believe that it should be deleted in favor of the template. Hires an editor 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literacy Template 

message: Substituted at 15:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment