Talk:List of countries by literacy rate

update tag needed

Un "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)

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.

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)

North Korea literacy rate

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)

zimbabwe's literacy rate is much higher than 90.7%.the stats used are out of date — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.51.246 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

North Korea currently listed at 100%

North Korea is currently listed at 100% literate. This is 100% impossible. Also, for any other country, 100% is also impossible. There are many varying degrees to which a single person is literate. There really is no qualitative standard here. Certainly, there is not a single country on Earth that can verify 100% of its population much less assess the literacy of all 100%. Please provide more information on this subject as I am doing research on the global level of knowledge of mathematics and the literacy rate of the global population. Also, sources other than the CIA fact-book would be advisable. UNESCO Institute for Statistics provides some interesting numbers. This is only a suggestion. More information would be helpful on this topic for me, thank you. Shadowsoldierunknown (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) 3/4/15

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)

November 2015 update

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)

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)

I have; it was part of the 2003 estimates. Jolly Ω Janner 07:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed data for Bangladesh

Hello Lokato, thanks for updating the table. Unfortunately, I've put the article back to the CIA's data, since the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics seems to give very varying figures year by year (http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2014/09/07/jugglery-with-literacy-rate). UNISEF put it at 59% for 2009-2013 and the CIA at 61.5 for 2015. Additionally the sources do not state how it was recorded. The rest of the countries listed were estimates for people aged 15 and over who can read and write in 2015. This makes the data less comparable. Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner 02:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry i have got the real information in 2015 from CRI publication and i think those links are bias. i got it from realiable sources sorry if you dont beleie but check this out.(http://cri.org.bd/publication/2015/Bangladesh%20Education%20for%20All/#/1/). Anyways i think those were some bias report this report tell the actual literacy rate.

The introduction for this report seems very bias towards the incumbent government of Bangladesh: "As a result, Bangladesh has witnessed tremendous progress" and again it does not state where the 71% statistic came from or how it defines literacy rate. Why do you not prefer the CIA figure? It's from 2015 as well. Jolly Ω Janner 03:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Because its an CRI Publication i think CIA does not tell the reality anways i given real facts!!

• The above discussion has been copied from User talk:Lokato, but has been moved here for more editor to engage.

I would also like to add that the CRI publication doesn't appear to show the difference in male and female literacy rate, as this edit suggests. I'm assuming 166.48.141.173 is Lokato and if so, where was the source for this data found? Jolly Ω Janner 05:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I think this sort of dispute is the problem that comes from having an article like this that is completely based on one source. The CIA's figures are uncritically used for pretty much the entire table. The CIA doesn't give figures for the United States, so it's not on the table at all, and other entries are disputable. Measuring literacy is not easy, and the results of any attempt to measure literacy are going to fluctuate with the methods used. I think the best solution is to add some columns to the chart. So instead of just one column for literacy rate, we have a column for literacy CIA's estimate, a column for UNICEF's estimate, and a column for the country's own estimate, and maybe a column for range which gives the low and high figures, like "61-71%". I think that would solve not just this bangledesh dispute, but many other problems with the article that are discussed higher up on this talk page. @Jolly Janner and Lokato: what do you think? If you both agree I can work on adding the columns. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ONUnicorn. I like the idea of having more data included and had even contemplated a separate table for historical data for the larger Western countries using 2003 data. I think a column with UNICEF's estimate would be a good solution. I still have reservations about the Bangladeshi statistic, but if you consider it reliable, its inclusion could put an end to 166.48.141.173's persistent edit warring. Jolly Ω Janner 19:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think my CRI publication is also correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokato (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Lokato: what do you think about adding a separate column for a country's own estimates, and keeping the other estimates? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn:, it's been a little while since this discussion has started and I'm wondering what to do if Lokato doesn't respond. I'm not sure if has lack of response is because he is busy or if he is fine with us proceeding without him. Jolly Ω Janner 01:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note, I have since found the UNESCO's data for 2015, instead of UNICEF's 2009-2013 average (UNESCO is a parent company of UNICEF). It is 61.5%; same as CIA. Adult literacy rate, population 15+ years, both sexes (%). In fact, I've gone done the first 15 countries listed and CIA and UNESCO have the same result. I don't see the need for UNISEF when it gives a range of years (i.e. 2008-2012) for the data. Jolly Ω Janner 07:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't include a UNICEF column because they use a range of years, do you plan to add a UNESCO column for 2015 instead? Worldbruce (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not propose adding a column for UNESCO's 2015 data, as it would be a replica of the CIA column.

The addition of a column of figures from a second source was intended to address two problems. First, that the list depends largely or entirely on a single source. Second, that the sole source is the U.S. government, and specifically the CIA, which a significant number of editors are unlikely to ever accept as neutral and factually accurate. Do you have another proposal for how to address those problems? The fact that UNESCO's figures match the CIA's strongly suggests they're not intellectually independent of each other. Are there any other differences between the two sources (e.g. how well the two explain the methodology behind the numbers, how often they're updated)? Would you replace the CIA with UNESCO? Add UNESCO as a second source? If the latter, what are the implications for when the list is next updated - can we expect the CIA to always be in sync with UNESCO? Worldbruce (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO give a more detailed source to their data than the CIA (Excel). As you can see from the list, the sources are very varied: some are censuses and some are generic surveys. A lot of them are prior to 2015, indicating that the UIS (UNESCO Institute de Statistics) has extrapolated them to come up with their 2015 estimate. I think that UNESCO could be a better source than CIA, since additional information on the methodology can be added (perhaps this can be put into the column where the current year is). I think this should resolve the problem of relying on one source, since the source is a collection of many other sources. I do not know much about the updates to the list. I'm presuming they update it annually since most of the data is for 2015. Jolly Ω Janner 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Fewer editors will cry 'POV' if UNESCO is the main source. A few sentences in the introduction summarizing the range of sources UNESCO relies on would be good. I'm not sure that an explanation of where UNESCO got the data is necessary for every row of the table. Where an editor disputes a UNESCO figure, we might try a ^{[note 1]} to explain how UNESCO arrived at that figure and give the alternative figure with its supporting reliable source. Worldbruce (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well. I will start by running through every country listed in the article to ensure they match up with UNESCO data, then change the sources used for the article with an additional external link to UNESCO methodology spreadsheet and a note in the lead of the range of sources used. As for Bangladesh, I am still unsure on how to treat it. UNESCO's results are GALP models based on its 2001 census, but this was for its 2013 estimate of 59.7%. The 61.5% figure from its 2015 estimate doesn't have much detail on how it was found other than "UIS estimate". The methodology is only for data estimates in the years 2005-2013. I would assume it's just been extrapolated using the GALP model again. I would propose adding a note to Bandladesh stating that its 2015 estimate has been modeled on 2001 population census "A person who is able to write a letter in any language has been considered as literate.". Jolly Ω Janner 22:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no New Zealand Data?

New Zealand doesn't appear on the chart. Is there any reason why? Alexmitchell1 (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

@Alexmitchell1:, 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)

Another November update

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)