Image talk:Literacy rate world.PNG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just a small note : the 100 % and the 95-99 % group should be combined, since there is no country with a 100 % literacy rate (there are always people who are mentally not capable of reading due to retardation, illness etc.) i.e. you never get to 100 % Travelbird 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

makes sense, they have been combined, though there seems to be some problem viewing images at the moment --Astrokey44 07:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is Western Sahara grey? Is the literacy rate not known? VQts 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

thats right, its listed as not available on the CIA factbook --Astrokey44 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sri_Lanka has a literacy rate of 96% according to the wikipedia page and should be dark blue.

I changed dark blue to show >98% literacy. It doesn't make sense to me why we should put countries with a 5% illiteracy rate on par with countries with perfect or near perfect literacy rates. It's a pretty huge difference if you think about it. >98% accounts for just about the entire developed world, whereas >95% included quite a few developing countries who clearly aren't on par and shouldn't be represented as such.Sbw01f (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent RV which said Reverted to version as of 14:23, 26 January 2008, 95-99% rates should be merged. The difference between 91% literacy and 98% literacy is too relevant to be considered as the same colour.:

The difference between 91% literacy and 97.9% literacy is no different than the difference between 71% literacy and 77.9% literacy. However, the difference between 95% literacy and 99-100% literacy is much larger, as that's the difference between a fully literate nation and a partially illiterate nation ie. developed and not developed. It simply does not make sense to put places like Chile, Argentina and Mongolia on par with the most well educated nations. The fact that places like Spain and South Korea get bumped down is just proof that those countries are below par in relation to their status as first world/developed nations and in relation to every other developed nation. And lastly, I updated many errors, meaning you're reverting to incorrect data. Sbw01f (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no practical difference between a 97% and a 99% literacy rate. In fact, until 2002 the United States reported a 97% literacy rate, and there are many researchers and social workers that would still consider that figure as accurate. This is especially true when you take in account things like functional illiteracy into the equation. Argentina and Chile have as much Nobel Prices and scientists among their ranks as Belgium, Finland, or other 99% countries, and both countries have university attendance rates on par with other developed nations. Even their average IQ rates, a reflection of education, are on par with other developed nations. To make a distinction between the two groups is discriminatory and not methodical.

On the other hand, the difference between 97% literacy and 90% literacy is *huge*. In a nation with 90% literacy, the lack of education is often visible and has a great socioeconomic effect. To put countries like Mexico, Turkey or China (90% literacy rates, very low university attendance rates, low book publishing/consumption levels) with countries like Greece, Spain, South Korea, Argentina or Chile (high literacy rates, high university attendance rates, high levels of newspaper circulation and book consumption) is completely ludicrous.

Though not a regular editor, I've been reading Wikipedia for a long time, and it keeps getting worse with impartial people that seek to push their POV into any map, article, or chart they can get their hands on. --Mangy Cheshire Cat (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no practical difference between millions of illiterate people, and none at all aside from the mentally handicap? Sorry but you're just flat out wrong. Like I said, that's the difference between a fully developed education system and a partially developed one. On the other hand, the difference between 90% and 97% is nothing more than a mere number, the same as 60%-67%, 70%-77% etc. Functional literacy is not what this map is about. It's simply a reflection of data from the CIA factbook, which has pretty broad use of the word "literacy". Argentina and Chile may have good education for Latin American standards (though still not as good as Cuba), but they are by no means on par with the developed world in any aspect, and this should be reflected. How many of the worlds top 500 Universities are in Argentina and Chile? The answer is none.[1] I have no intentions of hurting anyones feelings, but it happens sometimes and I apologize. I understand that no one wants to see their country just barely miss the mark, but that's reality. Nearly a million people in a nation of 16 million are illiterate, and you're trying to tell me that this isn't notable? Give me a break.

The point of wikipedia is to project facts in the most accurate and honest manner possible. Pretending that Chile is just as educated as Canada is not factual accuracy. That's called propaganda, and it is you who seems to be trying to push an agenda. My agenda revolves around what I just mentioned; Presenting facts honestly, not worrying about hurting someones feelings.

And for the record, Argentina has had five Nobel prize winners, that last one in 1984. Chile two, the last one in 1971. Belgium has had eleven, Finland three. Now take into effect the fact that Argentina has a population four times that of both countries, and Chile higher still, it basically speaks for itself. One of the greatest men of the 19th-20th century came out of India (Ghandi), that doesn't mean India is a highly educated country that deserves to be up there with America.

Now I'm going to make a compromise here and bump it down to 97% so to avoid a conflict, as I think that could still be considered reasonably accurate albeit a little lenient in my opinion, but that's the only compromise I'll make. Sbw01f (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You see to take offense to the fact that I'm trying to have the map reflect the real world as much as possible. I'm sorry,

The real world according to who? The statistics speak for themselves. Sbw01f (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq

UNICEF has Iraq'a literacy rate at 74%. [[2]] Maybe we should go with UNICEF numbers for this chart, nothing against the CIA Factbook, but it would have political reasons to fudge numbers. --Billwsu 02:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)