Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling books/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

A Tale of Two Cities, again

A Tale of Two Cities Charles Dickens English 1859 200 million[AToTC 1]

I removed the above entry, as discussed earlier the cite is a throwaway line in a newspaper piece, that likely took its information form an earlier version of this article. Certainly Dicken's works have sold in the tens of millions, but establishing even a rough reliable figure would be a tricky task, and would need to be cited to a suitable source.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

  1. ^ Mitchell, David. (8 May 2010) "David Mitchell on Historical Fiction", The Telegraph: "Charles Dickens’ second stab at a historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities, has sold more than 200 million copies to date, making it the bestselling novel — in any genre — of all time...."
"likely took its information form an earlier version of this article."? The information wasn't in a late March 2008 version of the article[1], and at the time David Mitchell made his remark, it was in our article, but sourced to this. So the 200 million figure isn't an invention from this list, and has at least two sources. We are not to second-guess reliable sources unless we have solid evidence to the contrary (or when the claims are really impossible, unlike here). The claim can be found at least as early as 2005[2]. Note that the claim is considered likely enough to be included in the 2015 Guinness Record Book[3]. Fram (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I am perfectly well aware that we replaced the dodgy "Broadway Buzz" cite with an even more dodgy cite from David Mitchell, finding another earlier but equally dodgy (albeit better written) article in "Broadway Buzz" covering the same production may be useful detective work, but does not give the claim any better basis. There used to be a, probably annual, published list of the most translated authors, and highest print numbers, unfortunately I don't recall the title of the work it appeared in. That would be a better basis for entries in this list than publicity material for theatricals. The Guinness cite is not much better, it simply says "believed to have sold 200 million". As to the probability of A Tale of Two Cities outstripping the rest of Dicken's works I doubt even that, A Christmas Carol would almost certainly be his best seller (it is still immensely popular in America), and Great Expectations, Oliver Twist and David Copperfield would be up there jostling for the next few spots.
So this is at the very least an extraordinary claim needing extraordinary support.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC).
Nowhere do we claim that it is his best-seller, we don't have reliable sources about the others so we can't include them. But in any case, we have multiple sources making this claim, which clearly did not originally come from Wikipedia (we may have propagated it), and Dickens was and is very popular, so there is no reason to remove the claim, as it is plausible and by now well-sourced. The claim is believed plausible enough to be repeated e.g. here.
The list of most translated authors is available at the Unesco website[4], but they don't include the print numbers. Dickens is at #25 of the most translated authors between 1979 and 2013. Fram (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all if you claim the 200 million figure, you implicitly claim it to be his bestseller as well anyway (or are you suggesting any of his other books sold more copies?). More importantly however the real issue is not whether the 200 million figure originated as a hoax on WP, but that none of the cited sources I've seen can be considered a really reliable source for that context. That is they are all just websites or newspaper articles that mention that figure on the side. None of them is a scholarly article or at least a piece of investigative journalism, so that we have some certainty they picked up the figure from reliable source or even better researched it themselves. If the figure is not hoax then such a source should exist and needs to be cited here. I couldn't find any in a first research.
Let me also reiterate that the source here is not reliable. That is an article by a movie director primarily over a subject other than Dickens or the tale of two cities that just mentioned that figure on a sidenote (presumably he merely heard/read it "somewhere"). That is anything but a reliable source. Various other sources all similar issues, non of them are scholarly or investigative journalism.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus over the years that this is not a reliably sourced claim. I will therefore remove the claim. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

This seems to be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Lord of Rings is three books published year apart

Many books are trilogies. You don't just put them together in one group, that making no sense at all. Why put the three Lord of the Ring's books together? They were published separate from one another, and not all at once either. Is the current number the total sales figures of all three books, or just one? I have a collection of four books, The Hobbit and the three Lord of the Rings books, sold together. That still counts as one sale for each of the individual books, since they are printed as separate books, not all stuck together in one. Dream Focus 21:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The article's "Notes" state: "The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien is included in the list as a single entry because it was written by Tolkien as a single book." And indeed it's sometimes (though not usually) sold as a single book. The reference to the sales figure makes it clear that it counts sales of the entire LotR, i.e. counting the "3 book version" as one sale, not 3. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What about the four book version I mentioned, where the three Lord of the Rings books are sold with The Hobbit? The Hobbit it says sold 100 million copies, while the three Lord of the Rings books sold 150 million total. Most people who bought the first book, Fellowship of the Ring, probably bought the next two as well. So 50 million copies of each sold, while the Hobbit did twice that number? Anyway, doesn't matter what the author intended, since it was in fact sold as three separate books and combining their sales figures makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 03:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The four book version is an exceptional edition that has hardly contributed to the total sales figure. The three books in one volume (or in one box) version is more significant, but indeed, most of the books are sold as three separate ones. I have no objection to moving the LotR to the "series" section, but don't really care either way in this case. Fram (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer keeping it as an individual book, since none of the 3 parts considered individually can be seen a "closed story", unlike e.g. the individual Harry Potter books. But I agree this can be disputed. @User:Dream Focus: The reference for the LotR 150 million figure (see link in the article) says: "Fully one-third of the 150 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series." To me this implies 150 million copies of the whole story, i.e. 150 million of each of the 3 parts (if we neglect the one-volume editions). So if we considered LotR a 3-part series, we would get a number of about 450 million copies, putting it on top position, even above the Harry Potter series.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the truth then somebody PLEASE give Tolkien the Place he desevres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.140.91 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My only Problem here is, if we see the LotR as a single Book, it has only 150 million sales. But if we see it as what it was published (which would only be right since that what people buy) it has reported sales figures of 450 million Books, + 100 million from it's Prequel, the Hobbit. that makes 550 Million alone from the Books published during his Lifetimem and would put him in the Palce he deseveres, above Rowling, on Top of the best selling Series list.
And yes, the LotR was published as a Sequel to the Hobbit, just like every HP book was published as a Sequel, so that should also count for the Hobbit.

The Lord of the Rings was published in three volumes because of problems with post-ww2 printing prices, paper availability, and subsequent affordability for buyers, but it is not a book series. It is one book, and today with no restrictions of paper availability it is usually published as one volume. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Lord of the Rings triology should count as 1 book. Not sure about Hobbit though...Dig Deeper (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of best-selling books. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings double counting

I think some double counting may have taken place as the book(s) is sold in both individual volumes and as a single book. Are there any other sources for these sales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:49B:5E2E:F503:3B79 (talk) 12:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The page is not informative

"The Bible, the Qur'an, and Quotations from Chairman Mao" has been excluded of the list, but why don't you put approximate numbers? If we can't compare these books to the other book, it's not informative, and we are forced to read other encyclopaedia to get this kind of informations. Wikipedia asked me, by a message, to support it with money, but I can't have the info that should be normally on a page titled "List of best-selling books", that's really unfair. I get frustrated with Wikipedia. We want to know the rank of Bible and Quran in the book sells.

That's completely stupid! I went to this page because of some internet link showing the number of sell for Bible and Quran. AND NOW, THEY REMOVED THE INFORMATION to be politically correct! How does it matter if it a book is religious or not? The important thing is the number of sells. Wikipedia is less and less neutral, and more and more dogmatic and politcally correct. And you ask for financial support?

Not many copies of the Koran or Bible are sold, they're mostly given away for free. So I doubt they would be in the top SELLING book list. Maybe a most published list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:6DF7:DEFA:8E8:50E1 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Includion of very old books in article

Some very old books are include in this article. There are: Don Quixote (1612); The Oddyssey (8th Century BC); Divine Comedy (1304). It arise me two questions:

  1. How is it possible that relevant sources have been found for these metrics?
  1. Why there are include books from 8th century, 14th century, 17th century then books from 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th aren't include in entire of article? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

1. looking at the sources its based on external analysis.

2. because they aren't any sources yet for those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA42:200:6DF7:DEFA:8E8:50E1 (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Hobbit

The Hobit (100 million) has been repeatedly removed from the list. Any reason why The Telegraph is not good enough a source to include it with that figure? Or The BBC? Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The Hobbit has sold between 35 and 40 million copies worldwide, not 100 million. Check page two. Reberp (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a 1997 book (in a 2004 reprint), these figures are seriously, seriously outdated (we have since had the three LOTR movies and the three Hobbit movies, which have seriously boosted the sales of all 4 books). You shouldn't use a 1997 book to overrule sales figure reliably reported in 2012, of course. Fram (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of best-selling books. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Best selling books per year?

I was looking for the best selling books per year. Most popular books in select years. There's New York Times Bestseller lists since when for example? maybe it'd be possible.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand

Any idea why this book is not featured here, when sales are between 50-100 million category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolninad (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

According to wikipedia "Today, more than 6.5 million copies of The Fountainhead have been sold worldwide."... Take a look -> The Fountainhead. Before looking I thought perhaps it could have been tagged as ideological and/or had serious problems in regards to the accounting of the sales, but it seems it really never sold that many copies.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

LOTR is not a book series

The Lord of the Rigs is almost universally described as "a sequel" to The Hobbit. It was written as one book, and has been in print as one book pretty consistently since the 1960s. It is never treated as a "trilogy" in academic works on the topic.

And (much more importantly for this article) it is quite frequently described as the best-selling book of the twentieth century.

To be fair, "single-volume books and book series" is a nonsense dichotomy to begin with. English Wikipedia seems to have invented the category of "single-volume book" (as distinct from "book series" rather than the more intuitive "multi-volume book") for the effect, if not the expressed purpose, of downplaying this achievement.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Heck (I didn't notice this until after posting the above), even our estimate (and therefore placement in the list) assumes it is a single book. This artificially shifts the book way down the list, since it is at a disadvantage to both the other individual books (from which it has been arbitrarily distinguished) and the other so-called "series" (since most or all of them include comprehensive estimates for sales figures for the entire series). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"for the effect, if not the expressed purpose, of downplaying this achievement."? Not really, no. The reason for the division is that lumping together single-volume books, book series, and regularly updated books is comparing apples and oranges. Many people have bought all seven volumes of Harry Potter, resulting in 7 * 70 million copies (on average). This is not a greater achievement, but neither is it less impressive, than "The Catcher in the Rye" selling 65 million copies: both have reached (if I may simplify) about 70 million individual buyers, though HP¨has the additional achievement of making them come back for more until the end.
Now, LOTR (and a few other works) have the problem that they are both individual books and a single book. However, by far the most common method of selling LOTR is still in three volumes, not as a very thick single book. Sales figure sare almost always given for the full series, not for full trilogies (150 million copies have been sold, not 150 million trilogies have been sold). We treat LOTR the same as e.g. HP. There is no attempt to downplay LOTR (why else would we put the Hobbit near the top of the article)
By the way, "book series" is by far the more common term, "multi-volume books" is rarely used. If you have a better word for "single-volume books", be my guest. Fram (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"for the effect, if not the expressed purpose, of downplaying this achievement."? Not really, no. Well, LOTR was the best-selling book of the twentieth century after the Bible, but this article does not mention it except as the fifteenth in a list of "book series" and in a long footnote making a feeble attempt to justify it. The reason for the division is that lumping together single-volume books, book series, and regularly updated books is comparing apples and oranges. You appear to have misread my comment: I specifically said that I wasn't talking about the "official" reason, but the actual effect. Many people have bought all seven volumes of Harry Potter, resulting in 7 * 70 million copies (on average). Harry Potter is a book series, and is never described as a single novel. This is not the case with LOTR. You are the one comparing apples and oranges here. This is not a greater achievement, but neither is it less impressive, An article called "List of best-selling books" should state inline that LOTR was the best-selling individual book of the twentieth century, after the Bible. Presently, the only inline reference to LOTR is as the fifteenth in a list to which it doesn't properly belong, and the only reason it places fifteenth is because we don't even count it as though it were a "series", even though we list it as one. than "The Catcher in the Rye" selling 65 million copies: Again, The Catcher in the Rye was not the best-selling book of the century. Claiming that its sales figures are not less impressive than LOTRs does not justify distorting the definitions of "book" and "book series" and giving a misleading figure. both have reached (if I may simplify) about 70 million individual buyers, though HP¨has the additional achievement of making them come back for more until the end. Again, apples and oranges.
Now, LOTR (and a few other works) have the problem that they are both individual books and a single book. Not really. LOTR is a single book that is universally recognized as, and frequently marketed as, such. An arbitrary marketing decision early in its publication history led to it being artificially split. However, by far the most common method of selling LOTR is still in three volumes, not as a very thick single book. You are talking about how it is sold, not how it is normally treated when discussing its placement on historical bestseller lists such as this. It is very often referred to as the best-selling book of the twentieth century. Sales figure sare almost always given for the full series, not for full trilogies And that would all be very well and good, if it were true, but ... (150 million copies have been sold, not 150 million trilogies have been sold) You're wrong. The footnote I referred to above specifically states that The figure of 150 million is a 2007 estimate of copies of the full story sold, whether published as one volume, three, or some other configuration. In other words, Wikipedia has arbitrarily decided that LOTR is a "book series" rather than a single book, but that its sales figures should not be cumulative like the rest of the sales figures for "book series" in the same list. We treat LOTR the same as e.g. HP. No, we don't. The HP figure is the total figure for copies of all the HP books piled on top of each other, while the LOTR figure is an estimate for the number of copies of the single book The Lord of the Rings that have been sold, regardless of how many volumes were involved in each of those sales. We treat LOTR like the entries in the "List of best-selling single-volume books", but we don't list it there. As you say, probably the majority of copies of LOTR have been sold in three volumes; if we multiplied the 150m by three to get a (very rough) estimate of the "copies [that] have been sold, not [...] trilogies [that] have been sold", LOTR would rank second, superseded by only HP. There is no attempt to downplay LOTR (why else would we put the Hobbit near the top of the article) Again, in that portion of my comment you first quoted and apparently misinterpreted, I specified that I don't think this was done in a deliberate attempt to downplay LOTR. I just think it has that effect, and should be remedied. If there has been no deliberate attempt to downplay, I can't imaging anyone seriously disagreeing with me on this point.
By the way, "book series" is by far the more common term, "multi-volume books" is rarely used. Again, you are misreading me. I was not comparing "book series" with "multi-volume books"; I was comparing "single-volume books" with "books". Wikipedia has arbitrarily decided that "books" should be defined as "single-volume", even though this is an inaccurate way of describing quite a lot of books, including those in our list of "single-volume books". Dream of the Red Chamber, for example, has almost never been sold in a single volume, and certainly wasn't thought of as such by at least the latter of its two acknowledged writers (whom we don't credit, but that's neither here nor there). If you have a better word for "single-volume books", be my guest. I wouldn't need to clarify this if you had been more careful in reading my first two comments, but I think the word "books" would do just fine. It would allow us to more readily include LOTR, and keep Dream without being dishonest/hypocritical about it.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never read Lord of the Rings, and "Lord of the Rigs" sounds like an interesting parody of that book [Hijiri88's typo :) ]. I do like fantasy books though and have indeed heard that LOTR is a bestselling book, nearly topping the bible. Apparently Hijiri88 edited according to his view, and it seems reasonable. I do not share the perspective that it is a sequel, I hold LOTR to be a trilogy... I guess it does matter - as a trilogy it might mean that 450 "parts of the trilogy" were sold, but if they were sold as one volume they would only count as one "sale". Very odd detail I think. And once again it would mean that LOTR would be negatively and injustly affected in both areas. :/ what a mess!--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 14:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri, you kep going on about LOTR being the second best selling book of the 20th century after the Bible. Where did you get this? I can find "reliable" sources stating that Scouting for Boys was the best selling book of the 20th century, after Bible, Qu'ran and Quotations of Mao, but without any mention of LOTR. The sources for LOTR I have seen all seem to indicate that the total number of LOTR books sold is 150 million, i.e. 50 million per book (sales for trilogy-in-one-volume copies are relatively small in comparison). I have not seen any claim that 450 million LOTR "books", volumes, have been sold. Fram (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lord of the rings was originally published as three books. What counts as sale if you lump them all together? does a sale of just fellowship count? or must all 3 be bought? isn't there a risk of double counting here too? If someone buys Fellowship then a year later two towers is that one sale or two?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of best-selling books. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Harry potter para in intro

The sources for the harry potter bit in the intro aren't very good. the web based one likes to a bit a text in a clickbait gallery, surely for such impressive claims there'd be better sources?

This comment should be dismissed by whoever wrote it, as it is now fixed. More reliable sources added, and not-so-credible claims removed. Reberp (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)\

To add

Fahrenheit 451: 10 Million Your Best Life Now: 10 million Eddie891 Talk Work 23:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Selection criteria

"All books of a religious, ideological, philosophical or political nature have been excluded from this list of best-selling books for these reasons." seems to be a random criteria, not supported by reliable source. Per WP:LSC, this should be removed.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The criteria are in the preceding sentences of course, not in the conclusion. The PW:LSC page is rather badly expressed: what isn't needed is a reliable source that says "best-selling books lists should not include religious, politicial, ... books"; what is needed are reliable sources for each entry indicating that they meet the criteria. The criteria need to be objective (so not "only well-written books are acceptable"), which is the case here. Figures for the excluded books vary wildly, and have a multitude of problems. E.g. there is not one Bible, every faction has its own version with other books included or excluded; then, many bibles are not sold, but distributed freely (every hotel room in many countries has one, and it usually is not because the hotel has bought them). The Mao book has massive figures, but when you are forced to have one or more copies, it is hardly a true sale any longer.

The intention of the list is to give an idea of which books have been bought voluntarily by most people. We had a separate list to include these books excluded here, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-printed books (2nd nomination) makes interesting reading. Including these books led to endless edit wars.

You have not indicated what about the list is "synthesis" (which new ideas are being brought forward by listing these figures, which all should come from reliable sources), or what makes the exclusion criteria "original research". If there are statements in that section you disagree with, please indicate them here with some explanation of why you consider them to be OR or synthesis. Fram (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Food for thought

According to this:

  1. Fifty Shades of Grey is Amazon's bestselling title
  2. Deathly Hallows was the best selling of the series (though the ubiquity of the Internet, and other changes over the coinciding with the publishing history of the series may mean that overall our decreasing sales narrative is correct).

Other books that will have had significant sales: Whitaker's Almanack, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack and The Highway Code.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC).

Also The Friendship Book of Francis Gay and The Rose Annual. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC).
And All Quiet on the Western Front. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC).
The Highway Code sells "hundreds of thousands of copies each year". https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/history-of-road-safety-and-the-driving-test/history-of-road-safety-the-highway-code-and-the-driving-test.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

Think and Grow Rich

This seems somewhat dubious self publication. It needs a third party source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.49.235 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The figure of 20m is almost certainly an exaggeration. However the book did sell extremely well. I am hoping to provide a more accurate source soon. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC).
The revised figure of 60 million, based on the cover blurb from the comic version of the book deems even more unreliable. Alice Payne Hackett gives a figure of 1,217,322 for sales between 1937 and 1965. The figures to 1975 will be available to anyone with access to 80 Years of Bestsellers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC).

The Celestine Prophecy

I have corrected the article The Celestine Prophecy to reflect its source on sales.

As of May 2005, the book had sold over 5 million copies worldwide,[1] with translations into 34 languages.

Given this I am doubtful about the cited 20 million copies, and am removing this from the list, pending some more reliable sourcing.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Prestashop 1.5. "Book Editing Services - Llumina Press". llumina.com. Archived from the original on 29 September 2013. Retrieved 15 May 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Reliability of Sources

I notice Source #10 (Stylist Magazine) is marked as an unreliable source, but only next to "She." I'm also skeptical that "She" sold 83 million copies, and agree that Stylist Magazine probably isn't an authoritative source. However, if it's so unreliable of a source that its unreliability has to be noted within the list, shouldn't that be notated at all places where it's cited, not just at the particular total we disagree with?

Yep, it is unreliable. It is based on a "lovereading" infographic. I confirmed with the creators that this in turn was based on our article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC).
I have removed (once again) A Tale of Two Cities. The original source for these sales numbers was a flyer for a Broadway musical. Apart from a second item relating to the same musical, all other sources previously given are either derived explicitly form our article, or have been found to be, or are in the right time frame, and have not replied to enquiries.
We are not "ardent anti-Dickens editors", as one IP editor claimed, we simply don't want unsourced material in this article.
I have also removed Don Quixote, the putative figures are very high, and there is once again no reliable source for this, as stated in the lead.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC).
These together with the Stylist source have been reinstated, claiming lack of consensus on the talk page. I believe there is adequate consensus on Tale of Two Cities in the archives (#Where's the rest of Dickens?, #Hopelessly incomplete, #Don Quixote, #Great Expectations, #A Tale Of Two Cities, #A Tale of Two Cities, again) and in the TLS article cited, that there is consensus here that The Stylist is unreliable (and my personal correspondence with Love Reading, who's infographic it is based on, confirmed that they used our article). Don Quixote was kept off the list for a very long time, even the editor who reinstated it
The derivative nature of most Internet and media pieces has been identified for a long time, ironically by the editor who just reintroduced them in #We are being used... (though even that underestimates how much we are relied on, the Huffington Post article, is derived from an undated How Stuff Works page, which in turn seems derived, at least in part, from our list).
Given these facts, and the failure to advance any reason to keep these poor sources and poorly sourced assertions I am once again removing them.
Please do not revert without some reliable sources, or at least consensus.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

Missing

Fahrenheit 451: 10 Million Your Best Life Now: 10 million Eat, Pray, Love: 10 million Eddie891 Talk Work 20:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough issue

It appears this article has one editor who feels he owns the page, and is worrying using his own original research. It appears he has unilaterally deleted entries despite sources and gone against consensus on a number of issues. Perhaps it would be appropriate if Rich took a break from editing this page for a few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.41.174 (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

Lord of the Rings should be in the series section, as it the Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers and Return of the King are sold as individual volumes and it is common parlance to treat it as trilogy. I understand fanboys want to inflate Tolkien's prestige but Wikipedia really isn't the place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.180.128.181 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. it should be in the series section

There is stuff in the archive about this. The figures as a book are around 150 million, as a series they would be 450m. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC).
Very wrong. Each of the three volumes has sold around 50 million copies, meaning the series as a whole stands at about 150 million copies, not 450 million. 104.254.92.59 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the list of best-selling authors, Tolkien has sold 200-250 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elddir (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Presumably this is treating the LOTR as 150 million sales, and the Hobbit as 100m. LOTR is actually divided into 6 books, two in each of the traditional 3 volume arrangement. So one could argue for 150m*6 + 100m = 1bn - however that is not what we have done. See also the footnote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC).

Agree - This was original published as a series of three books, just like another series it should be in the series section. This also seems to have the consensus on the article for most of its history. I would remind any editors that no matter how much time you invest in an article you don't own it. Wikipedia is for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.41.174 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Religious books

Why not have a table with range of estimates for most printed books? Or possibly create a new page for the same. Reliable third party sources that give estimates still seem like reliable sources to me, and interesting... If not I may try and create a new page sometime called "estimates of most printed books". Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

50 Shades

50 Shades is listed in the Series section as being 3 books and selling 150mil... shouldn't at least one of the books (presumably the 1st one) be listed in the 50+mil individual books section? (eg. see [5] "The first book, Fifty Shades of Grey, was released in March 2012... by the end of 2012, sales had risen to between 65 million and 70 million copies." Tobus (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Don Quixote

The list is missing Don Quixote, which is the most translated work of fiction ever and which has been in constant publication for almost four hundred years. There are figures around to suggest that it's sold around half a billion copies in its very long life. There are other omissions but at least include Don Quixote, the omission of which just makes the list not credible at all. 203.214.124.254 (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There are figures around to "suggest" all sorts of things, but as the lead says, we do not have reliable figures for these books (indeed for most books published prior to about 1897 in the US, for example when Bowker started to collect sales figures from retailers).
Where there are publishers records they are patchy, not always reliable, and, compared with the volume of 20th and 21st century block-busters generally very small.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

Dr Atkins (New) Diet Revolution

See Atkins Diet for details.

According to the [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1436475/Book-shops-achieve-a-stunning-figure-thanks-to-the-Atkins-diet.html telegraph these two volumes had sold almost 15 million copies between them as of mid 2003, and may be eligible for a spot on one of the lists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

Best Life Online citation for top sellers

I'm concerned that the statistics for the top-selling books for all time are cited to this article, which I suspect is not actually well-sourced:

https://bestlifeonline.com/best-selling-novels/

That article claims: "Herein, we’ve rounded up the 30 best-selling novels of all time, according to various expert counters at The Guardian and The New York Times. " However, if you follow the links it provides they go to a Guardian article talking only about the best-selling UK novels (https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare#list) and a NYT article that is recommending Great Books and doesn't actually have any sales data at all (https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/books/072098best-novels-list.html)

In short, I feel that this source is not up to Wikipedia citation standards and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidoaye (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

A Tale of Two Cities

This novel keeps coming up every now and then on this list with poor citations when it had already been proven that the 200 million units sold statistic was false and it is even stated on the novel's wikipedia page that it was just a false rumour disproven by Oxford professor. So in conclusion, I hope that this entry is removed once again and hope this doesn't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommid (talk • contribs) 0:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is also a note above about this. I have removed it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

Author of Quran

I don't think it's correct and NPOV to list "Allah" as the author of the Quran. This was already discussed over tens years ago, but without a proper conclusion it seems.

"The current version lists the author of the Qu'ran as "Muhammad and companions." This has been arrived at after trying several unworkable or NPOV ways. I realize that Muslims believe that the Qu'ran was written by God and put into Muhammad's mind, whereafter he dictated it to his companions, thus according to Islam it is truly God who was the author. I do not have a problem with this, but it would not be demonstrating a Neutral Point of View (one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia policy) to say that "Allah" wrote the Qu'ran. Just like the Bible does not say "God" wrote it, even though it is held by Judeochristians to be divinely inspired, nor does the Book of Mormon say that an angel wrote it, even though Mormons believe the golden plates to have been written by an angel, so can we not authoritatively say that Allah wrote the Qu'ran. Instead, the respective human authors or agencies have been listed as the author, and a relevant note has been added at the bottom of the table indicating the variant belief systems. I believe this respects the Islamic and other religious traditions on the matter, while still maintaining NPOV.--Agbdavis 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)"

- wikitigresito (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Think and grow rich

Think and grow rich has sold more than 100 million copies http://www.naphill.org/shop/books/think-and-grow-rich/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.154.34.118 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Hitler's Mein Kampf had 10 million sales in 1944. It is not listed, how many times it has been sold to date?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:5451:2B3F:F939:C90C (talk) 03:23 28 July 2019 (UTC)

In the Mein Kampf article the highest cited figure is 5.2 million, while the 10 million at the end of the war seem reasonable, but with a citation needed. This is far below the other entries in the political section with 50 million being the lowest. It simply sold too few books to be included. --Trialpears (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"sold over 12 million copies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPdO-LnUzMI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:7858:F864:D93C:7918 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

fiction/nonfiction

there is an error with the markings of fiction/nonfiction: the bible, the quaran and the book of mormon are demonstrably fiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.198.11.37 (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim they're non-fiction just that they're religious books. --Trialpears (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

List of best-selling religious and political texts

I have also removed this section. Sourcing is weak, and the caveats required are not in the section (as they are in the same coverage in the lead).

Book Author(s) Original language First published Approximate sales Genre
The Bible various Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Aramaic, and Koine Greek ancient >4 billion[1][2] religious (Judaeo-Christian)
The Little Red Book (毛主席语录) Mao Zedong Standard Chinese 1964–1976 820 million[2] political (Communist)
The Quran (القرآن‎) Muhammad Classical Arabic 7th century AD >800 million[2] religious (Islamic)
Chairman Mao's Poems Mao Zedong Standard Chinese 1966 400 million[2] political (Communist)
Selected Articles of Mao Zedong Mao Zedong Standard Chinese 1966 252.5 million[2] political (Communist)
The Book of Mormon Joseph Smith English 1830 150 million[2] religious (Mormon)
The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life Watchtower Society English 1968 107 million[2] religious (Jehovah's Witness)
On the Three Representations Jiang Zemin Standard Chinese 2001 100 million[2] political (Communist)
Steps to Christ Ellen G. White English 1892 60 million[2] religious (Seventh-day Adventist)
  1. ^ Polland, Jennifer (2012). "The 10 Most Read Books in the World". Business Insider. Retrieved July 7, 2019.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i Griese, Noel L. (2010). "The Bible vs. Mao: A 'Best Guess' of the Top 25 Bestselling Books of All Time". Publishing Perspectives. Retrieved July 7, 2019.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC).

Tom Clancy

The Tom Clancy wikipedia page states that he has sold over 100 million copies in total, although it is not clear to me that his books constitute a series. Can anyone chime in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StainlessSteelScorpion (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of his books are a series, Jack Ryan I believe is the protagonist's name. However some of his books are written by other people. Not that that disqualifies them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

What happened to Betty Crocker?

The wikipedia article on Betty Crocker's Cookbook mentions 75 million copies. Relying on the same sources, it should really be included here.Pensées de Pascal (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I have added this book to the appropriate section. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

Grimms Fairytales

I have removed this, sourced only by a blog. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

Merging tables

Wouldn't it be better if we merge the tables instead of having different tables based on the number of copies?

No, these are different types of thing, series and books, for example. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

Lord of the Rings sales

Found a reliable statistics institute link that is also used in the Wikipedia page for how much money the franchise made. In it, they show the sales for each of the volumes and the total for all three would be 445 million copies sold and Tolkien considered the entire story as one book. So should this be the new number on this page since the page also considers the Lord of the Rings as one book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommid (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if www.statisticbrain.com is that reliable. If they are, however, it fits in with the 150 million we have for LOTR as a whole (150m x 3 = 450m). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

Think and Grow Rich

(See /Archive 4#Think and Grow Rich and /Archive 4#Think and grow rich) There is no reliable source that this has sold even the 20m we used to have for it, certainly not the 100m we have now. Removing. If anyone has the 1980 version of the Bestsellers book, they may have more information. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

The Little Prince

I have moved this to 140m, which is what the source says, other sources do say 200m. It's not clear where they get their numbers from (the 140m is attributed to the St Exp Foundation, but I can't find it on their web site). We have had the book on this page at 50m. I can't do a full audit of our history for this book tonight, to see if it may have been the circular source.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

Subsequent releases to series

There are currently 4 Bridget Jones books rather than 3.

What is the fourth? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

To change the the numbers if copies sold

This is an urgent matter. Requesting to change the number of Jack Reacher novels copies sold from 60 million copies to 100 million copies. For more proof you can Google and check about how many novels have been sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.210.229.70 (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Gilbert's Eat, Pray, Love - sold 12 or 13 million copies - qualifies for list?

According to Forbes, it was 9 million sold in 2010 (a decade ago): https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2010/08/18/the-eat-pray-love-industry/#46174c115844

According to her bio, it's 12M now:

https://www.elizabethgilbert.com/bio/

"Elizabeth is best known, however for her 2006 memoir EAT PRAY LOVE, which chronicled her journey alone around the world, looking for solace after a difficult divorce. The book was an international bestseller, translated into over thirty languages, with over 12 million copies sold worldwide."

That's backed by Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2019/06/city-of-girls-elizabeth-gilbert-review

"After 2006's Eat, Pray, Love sold 12 million copies, Gilbert became a bona fide celebrity, and subsequent events in her life—a divorce from the man she fell in love with at the end of the book; a new romance with her best friend, Rayya Alias, who later died of pancreatic cancer—have only furthered her place in the public imagination."

The Standard says it's up to 13 million copies: https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/city-of-girls-by-elizabeth-gilbert-review-a4154931.html

Whether it's 12M or 13M it sounds like it's qualified for the bestselling list ...

Lauchlanmack (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What Color Is Your Parachute has likely sold 25M copies ...

The Wikipedia article for the book says over 10M copies were sold and gives a citation from 2010.

Here's another citation of 10M sold from 2009: http://www.penguinrandomhouse.biz/media/pdfs/TenSpeedPress.pdf

Or 2014: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/jobs/what-color-is-your-parachute-is-still-going-strong.html

Or today, in 2020: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/605298/what-color-is-your-parachute-2020-by-richard-n-bolles/

It's like it got stuck in a time warp some time before 2009, and no more copies were sold, which is obviously nonsense.

I read an estimate that 850,000 copies are sold each year, which would make it an addition 9.35M copies sold. That would take it to around 19M copies sold in 2020, clearly "over 10M." A lot over.

The author estimated in 2009 that he has sales of around 10,000 / month or 120,000 / year:

http://www.jobhuntersbible.com/books

"What Color Is Your Parachute? A Practical Manual for Job-Hunters and Career-Changers” has sold over 10,000,000 print copies. More than ten thousand people buy the book each month."

If he is correct, and it kept selling at that rate (which is likely, or probably actually increased) it's sold more than 10M + (11x120,000) = 10 + 15.84M = 25.84M.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

How to Win Friends and Influence People has sold 30M, not 15M

Someone might like to move the entry for How to Win Friends and Influence People up.

NYT in 2011:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/books/books-of-the-times-classic-advice-please-leave-well-enough-alone.html

"Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” which turns 75 this year, has sold more than 30 million copies and continues to be a best seller."

Times in 2011:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2086680_2086683_2087696,00.html

"By Andrea Sachs Tuesday, Aug. 09, 2011
...But Dale Carnegie was a wizard when it came to making the public like him. Besides buying more than 30 million copies worldwide of his Depression-era book, they broke down the doors of his educational programs, which also promised professional success and happiness. "

I'd move it myself but haven't worked with tables in Wikipedia.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually it was 32M or 34M ... see the talk page for Dale Carnegie or the book, I put the calculations / citations in one of those places :)

I'm reproducing the logic from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People here:

It had sold 30M copies by 2011:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/books/books-of-the-times-classic-advice-please-leave-well-enough-alone.html

"Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” which turns 75 this year, has sold more than 30 million copies and continues to be a best seller."

And Time in 2011:

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2086680_2086683_2087696,00.html

"By Andrea Sachs Tuesday, Aug. 09, 2011 "...But Dale Carnegie was a wizard when it came to making the public like him. Besides buying more than 30 million copies worldwide of his Depression-era book, they broke down the doors of his educational programs, which also promised professional success and happiness."

Or The New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/what-dale-carnegies-how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-can-teach-the-modern-worker

"With the book’s success—it has reportedly been purchased more than thirty million times since its initial publication, in 1936"

But that was in 2011.

This link seems to suggest that in the early 1980s sales were at 250,000 units a year - it was 1M over 4 years: If these trends are holding, that would make it roughly just over 32M in sales in 2020. That's putting aside audio books, kindle books, and secondhand book sales.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/10/25/books/reluctant-dale-carnegie-s-50-year-old-classic.html

Also, that tallies with the maths: If it has sold 30 million copies in 75 years, that suggests an average annual sales of around 400,000 a year. The 1980s figure of 250,000 copies sold a year is less than that and probably on the conservative side.

2011 to 2020 is 9 years. At 250,000 per year that's 2.25M copies, at 400,000 per year it's 3.6M.

So my estimate is that in 2020 it's sold between 32M and 34M copies.

I'll update the article to put it at 32M copies, but I don't know how to move it up the table. Can someone else do that?

Lauchlanmack (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

ok, I moved it to the right place in the table as well :) Lauchlanmack (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I made the changes but it was rolled back by someone else as part of a bulk rollback of multiple changes I made. The 30M is a solid citation from the New York Times and Time magazine. If someone else can be bothered to update this please go ahead and hopefully you won't get it rolled back that time. Lauchlanmack (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"Vardi Wala Gunda" columns wrong

The columns for the entry are wrongly placed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.160.199 (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_books/Archive_4&oldid=1090414641"