Talk:List of countries by literacy rate

message: The rate listed for North Korea is clearly in error, whatever the sources.  It has widely been reported by escapees of the concentration camps in North Korea that children in the camps do not attend school and are unable to read and write.  Given this little bit of information that we have and the complete lack of any transparency in the country, wouldn't it be more appropriate to list the literacy rate in North Korea as "n/a" rather than make a claim that is clearly false?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGB (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: UNESCO agrees with the CIA factbook on this particular information. Other than that i agree with you, we need a specification of what "literacy" means within this context. --Kim D. Petersen 08:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I would venture to say that Vatican City is 100% literate. The clergy again, as of old^^--131.159.76.208 (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea literacy rate 

message: I have been bold and updated the list according to the CIA Factbook, which mostly consists of 2015 estimates. As a result, some countries with their own sources have had these sources removed. This both increases consistency and reliability since the data is more recent. Many Western countries with 2003 estimates and small island nations with pre-2000 estimates have been removed. The lack of data for small island nations is a common problem for worldwide statistics and I'm certain that the removal of its massively outdated information is an improvement. The loss of many Western countries is a shame, but they are no longer listed on the CIA Factbook or UNESCO, indicating that the data from 2003 is too outdated and Wikipedia should follow suit. Fortunately, I think most people assume these nations to have very high literacy rates (95%+). This does not mean we should put their literacy rate as 99% in the table. If we can find comparable, recent statistics from countries not listed, then we should put them on the list with inline citations. I would say anything published since 2010 is recent and comparable meaning reading and writing for most of the population e.g. over 10 or 15 years old. I do think it's unlikely we will find such data outside of the CIA Factbook, since that's pretty much the basis they use.
A few additional notes on country-specific citations that I've removed:
*Antigua and Barbuda: the CIA list its definition as age 15 and over has completed five or more years of schooling. This is inconsistent with the rest of the data.
*Australia: the skill levels used in this data only relate to reading, not writing. This is inconsistent with the other countries.
*Belize: this document states "For the purpose of this report, persons who have completed at least Standard Five at primary school are considered literate." (p. 5) the report is not claiming this to be the literacy rate.
*Djibouti: I've left this one up, but I cannot access this citation, but would really appreciate help if anyone can. The date of 2012 is recent enough, but I would like to see how the book defines literacy rate.
*Somalia: as the article says, this report does not cover all of Somalia, although I do think the report is useful, so I have added its finding to Education in Somalia.
I would appreciate any comments, so that the disputed factual accuracy tag can be removed. I intend to make a new map once the article is deemed stable. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 20:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you removed the U.S. from the list. 2601:603:4401:FB79:0:0:0:880A (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have; it was part of the 2003 estimates. Jolly Ω Janner 07:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2015 update 

message: New Zealand doesn't appear on the chart. Is there any reason why?
Alexmitchell1 (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no (recent) data for its literacy rate from the CIA or UNESCO. There is a discussion above about the inclusion for other sources of data. If a consensus is reached to include more sources of data, it may be included. Jolly Ω Janner 06:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , I thought I'd follow this up in a bit more detail for you. Previous revisions of our own article listed it as 99% with a citation from the CIA for 2003 estimate. This information is no longer published by the CIA and there were many cases where Western countries were simply given 99% on Wikipedia based on assumptions. New Zealand's own statistics on the matter do not list a literacy rate (i.e. people who can read and write). I believe literacy rates are more useful for developing nations, whereas somewhere like New Zealand may use PISA. Jolly Ω Janner 08:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no New Zealand Data? 

message: Per discussions on this talk page, I have made another major update to the list by using UNESCO as the main source. The rates were the same as the CIA, although there are some changes. These countries are now on the list:
* Antigua & Barbuda
* Belize
* Cayman Islands
* Cote d'Ivoire
* Guadeloupe
* Guam
* Guyana
* Jamaica
* Martinique
* Reunion
* Slovakia
The following rely on CIA data:
* Israel
* Kosovo
* Solomon Islands
* Taiwan
These two have been removed:
* Djibouti (there were previous concerns about its sources being inaccessible and I don't see it coming to light at any point)
* Czech Republic (The CIA listed it, but noted it wasn't sure about what it was actually measuring. UNESCO don't list it)
A map was made earlier from the CIA data, but I held off adding it to the article for a while. Once updated with this, it will appear. I hope we reach a resolution with Bangladesh and its uncited claims for male and female literacy rates removed. Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another November update 

message: Countries to Add:
Germany, Australia
Data to Update:
2601:282:4101:F0E:185A:423F:6E78:5120 (talk)A Student in Need  —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Update 

message: The figure for Nigeria has recently been changed with the rationale being that it's official. I would say that UNESCO and CIA are also official sources of data. UNESCO had estimates for the year 2015, however the National Bureau of Statistics published this in 2010. Which source should we use? Should we use both? I think before we decide that, we need to see what exactly the National Bureau of Statistics is measuring. The adult literacy rate in their report seems to differ from that posted to the article, so hopefully  can help us out with a page number or something. Jolly Ω Janner 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry about the figures, I wasn't aware of the age bracket, I wrote the average for the youth and adult population. I will correct that now, to include only the adult population. About which figures should be used, I believe figures from the statistical bodies of individual countries should be used. But when they are not found, then CIA or other notable sources can be used. Why I think so is that: it is quite unclear how CIA or UNESCO collated their estimates. Did they get them from the the countries' government sources? Or they performed the surveys themselves? It definitely isn't the former (cos it's not possible for a 2015 estimate to be less than an earlier 2010 estimate, judging by economic realities - So definitely, the estimate isn't based on official figures), it definitely isn't the latter either. What do you think?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * UNESCO estimate comes from Demographic and Health Survey 2008 (pp 35-36): "Refers to men/women who attended secondary school or higher and women who can read a whole sentence or part of a sentence" with 74.4% and 53.7% respectively. The UIS further interpret this using a GALP model to come to their 2015 estimate of 69.2% and 49.7%. The National Literacy Survey 2010 from Nigeria states "In this survey, literacy was assessed on the ability to read and write with understanding, in English or in any of the Nigerian native languages. The assessment was however based on self-reporting." I'd presume the reason Nigeria's figure changed through the GALP model is that it was initially only report reading skills,so was slightly reduced to take account for those who can read, but can't write. I think the reason for the sizable discrepancy between UNESCO and NBS (about 10%) is the fact that UNESCO used tests, whereas NBS was based on self-reporting. I would comment that they are both reliable sources. If I had to pick one, I would prefer UNESCO since it seems to have gone through more processing, whereas NBS is more raw. What are your thoughts now that I've dug a bit deeper into the data collection? Jolly Ω Janner 02:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, maybe I'll go with your position; even though the UNESCO data is from 2008 Health Survey, while the NBS is 2010. But I think we can just use the CIA for the sake of consistency. However, if the NBS should release an updated publication, I would most probably be leaning towards using the NBS statistics. I'm going with the UNESCO stats, for now. Regards :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *A previous discussion above this one found that UNESCO might seem less biased than CIA. In addition they give a detailed breakdown of the original sources for the data, whereas CIA do not. As far as I'm aware, the CIA World Factbook just uses UNESCO's data. Jolly Ω Janner 03:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I meant UNESCO....The data from both organizations are similar, reason why I use them interchangeably. Sorry for the confusion.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nigeria rate 

message: Why is Japan missing in the list ? Wicki (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: UNESCO generally don't publish data on highly developed countries. Jolly Ω Janner 19:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan missing 

message: Sorry to be rude, but may I ask why in the name of Holy Fuck the United States is not included in this list? It's not listed under USA, U.S., United States or America. Why would you waste your readers time not showing this obviously desired information?
:UNESCO generally don't publish data on highly developed countries. Jolly Ω Janner 17:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a URL for others to verify that statement? It could be added to the article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  US missing 

message: This is essentially a worthless, intellectually light article.  North Korea with 100%?  That's just going to go unchallenged?  Plus like a third of the countries have no statistics.  Pathetic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.45.79 (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthless article 

message: Look, correct or not correct as it may be, 100.0% (self-reported) is what is in the UNESCO data source. If you want to provide a different figure, put it in the "Non-UNESCO Literacy Rate" column, and provide a source. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obviously false, though. If a UN report says that cows are sheep, why should we report as such? It needs a note stating the figure is falsified. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit on North Korea of January 31 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of countries by literacy rate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509204646/http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml to http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can it honestly be true that no one knows what the literacy rate is for places like the US and the UK?
Seems unlikely, yet the table is blank for these.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably they don't bother collecting data. 89.172.8.118 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Data 

message: Can we remove North Korea's nonsensical 100.0% figure? I'm not buying the "hardline communists give good education" argument. Countries which were closed communist regimes such as Ceauşescu's Romania and Hoxha's Albania show elderly literacy rates well under 100.0%. Clearly this number has been "engineered". 89.172.8.118 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea 

message: According to the map, literacy rate of the United States is over 95%, while in tables, the only piece of data states 86% (rates for the US specifically are incomplete, however). On the other hand, Russia and many eastern Europe countries are shaded in light pink, indicating literacy rates under 95%, which is not what the rates in tables are. There are probably disparities for other countries as well. Some numbers may be out of date and data on some countries are incomplete. However, it is clear that the map is incompatible with the numbers in the tables. 46.123.250.154 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map does not correspond to the data in tables