Talk:List of best-selling books

Little Prince - highly disputable figure

According to the Little Prince talk page the number of verified copies sold is 140 million, not 200 million. There is no new data in the subject since 2012/2014 articles. Two of the sources are highly disputed (one giving 200 million in 2011, when all other sources give ar. 140 million in 2012 and 2014). I think that until the dispute is resolved on the wiki page of Little Prince, this bold number and position should be taken down. In its place should go either Bible number 1, Quran number 2 (skip the buy-or-die Chinese sold Little Red Book) and LOTR number 3 according to the sources given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starasta1 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So I've updated the list with the data and figures from Wiki's page, plus other, all stating numbers around 140-150 million. The two exceptions copy-pasted from one misinforming source, mentioned in the talk page of Little Prince. Check the discussion there. Since the last known information on Lord of the Rings sold copies data is still from 2007, before the release of the Hobbit trilogy, then I assume it is way over 200 million copies sold, and thus more than Little Prince (150 million as for 2014). I have skipped the Bible, Quran and two more very important positions: Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes and A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens - both have no reliable sources to back up their numbers.Starasta1 (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Starasta you seem extremely keen on trying to put Lord of the Rings at the top of the list. Is there a particular reason for that? As you don't appear to voice any concern against books that would of sold less, such as Alice in Wonderland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.34.161 (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This source explicitly says it is based on our article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

The little Prince had multiple sources, if there is a bad source remove it, but just removing any sources that you don't agree with is not acceptable.

Behaviour of some editors

I have noted looking at this article that a particularly editor seems to act in a way that would presume they own it or have some sort of special right over it. I think this might breach community rules and perhaps those editors should take a break from this article?

Western/English Bias

Is there potential bias towards western authors or those publishing in English as they seem to dominate the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Yes there is for a number of reasons:

• Editors here are English speaking, and see more information about the English Speaking world.
• We don't have great figures for the majority of the world's book markets available to us.
• The English language book market has been one of the largest, if not the largest, over the last 150 years.

Bear in mind though, the three undisputed "most copies printed" books were written in Chinese, Arabic and Greek/Hebrew.

Also many of these books are widely translated.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

Add a tag, as there is a clear Anglosphere bias, French and Chinese literature seems to have recently been targeted for removal by some editors recently.

Please provide diffs to support this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

RFC on book numbers

Should only accurate sales data (such as from PoS data collection) be used for books in this list (This only goes back to the 90s) or should estimated figures also be used?

In addition should E-book figures be included or just physical books? Old Jack Crowe (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I'm here via FRS. I think either variety of source is probably fine: provided the estimated figures are provided in an otherwise reliable, WP:secondary source, they are actually the better source of WP:verification as far as an article on this project is concerned. Normally, as a WP:primary source, the point-of-sale figures would be discouraged, but this one of those circumstances where they are permitted under the relevant policies, I would argue, so I think they represent a separate and appropriate means of verification for the purposes of this skin-deep list article. I recognize that having separate streams of verification can lead to differing figures (that is of course a reality across most articles on this project after-all) and that this in turn can lead some atypical figures in the tables, but this isn't really a huge problem and I note that the current approach taken seems to evidence that the local editors here are pretty adapt and minimizing this distraction while maintaining the span of estimates: "50+ million", "5-8 million", ">30 million"", ect. One final note as to this inquiry though is that it may make sense to in some way mark the figures being listed only via raw figures in some manner, so as to recognize that this is beginning to, kinda-sorta, edge on WP:OR, insofar as "best-selling" is often a distinction marked my secondary sources (which again, are our preference on this project anyway)--but I think the RfC close should also probably leave that last point to be decided separately and later by the local editors here, as it doesn't flow as expressly from policy as the rest of the argument above, as I see it.

Similarly, I see no reason to artificially restrict the figures to physical copies, merely because the physical medium of distribution has changed. The nominal topic of this article is volume of sales, and sales merely occur in a larger variety of contexts today. More to the point in the context of this project, that seems to be how the relavant secondary sources treat the matter, so I see no reason (other than what would be an idiosyncratically dogmatic, and frankly anachronistic, mindset) to strike out on our own here. So in summary: all of the proposed sources are acceptable, and when dropping figures from primary sources (PoS included), it probably makes the most sense to aggregate the sales figures across all distribution mediums (or list both traditional and digital sales side by side, at a minimum). However, such figures should be used with clear citation, and maybe even some degree of slight in-line attribution, even if it is just shorthand notation. Props go out to Old Jack Crowe for using RfC in one of those rare (but in this case appropriate) cases where there seems to have been no previous dispute but rather just one editor who wanted some additional input before proceeding--and for formatting the RfC succinctly, directly, and neutrally. A concise and well-framed RfC prompt is rarity and a nice thing to behold. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 00:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I wanted to ensure it was fair and neutral so I am glad I managed that. What are the next steps? I concur with your points I assume as this has been live for over a month this is now the consensus. Old Jack Crowe (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no, this is not the consensus. You used jargon (PoS) in the question without indicating what you mean by it, where this can be found / checked, whether this is a US thing or worldwide, and so on. First explain much more thoroughly what you actually are trying to achieve / change with this RfC, with some examples of things that would change (will this remove entries? add entries? change figures?) and which reliable sources you would use. The RfC as posted was largely unanswerable one way or another. Fram (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

We have reliable figures for the North American or US market for most of the 20th century. For other markets I imagine it will vary. We don't have a team of dedicated researchers, so it's tricky to say "these numbers don't exist", but we certainly can point to a few things.

Firstly less trustworthy publishers have deliberately exaggerated figures.

Secondly it was common for books in the early part of the twentieth century, in the UK at least, to include on the title page statements such as "Now in its twentieth thousand". We can conclude that "thousands" was a substantial print run (and indeed the majority of today's books probably don't break 1000 copies). The volume that was enabled by the explosion of disposable income in the post-war years in the US, Canada and Europe was on a scale that dwarfed sales prior to this. Even so there are very few books from the well documented US sales of the mid-twentieth century that make our list. The presumption must be that any book that sold enough copies to be on our list will have some degree of documentation to back up the sales figures, rather than some unsourced estimate.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC).

Fram isn't that all original research? The outcome agreed in the RfC sounds sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.123.150 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable figures from before Bowker, for any market, we would be interested in them. More modern figures are probably more reliable, as they will be better audited.

It's not OR to have some understanding of the British and American book markets over the last 200 years, and to share this on the talk page, though I would not include the above conclusions in an article without an RS.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

Rich I would ask you respect the consensus and not make changes to reflect your personal believes without prior discussion. Please remember you don't own this article nor are you the arbitor of what is or is not a reliable source. Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.123.150 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How to Win Friends and Influence People

Article How to Win Friends and Influence People says 30 million and this article just 15 millions. Who is right?

From memory only I believe the difference may be due to the large number of the Reader's Digest edition. If so the larger number is correct, unless there's a good reason to exclude the RD copies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Telegraph "Picture article"

Why is this not a good source? Because it is a direct copy of our top 5 the day before publication.

Therefore I am once again removing the entries based on it. Please read Peter Thoneman's article referenced at the top of this talk page to understand how this circular referencing has played out in the past.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

Rich, everyone appreciates your passion, however Wikipedia isn't the place for original research.

Also I would have to question your approach as you seen fixated on Dickens? You didn't remove the other novels cited from the same article Then there were none and dreams of the red chamber you didn't delete, so your claim above seems dubious at best. Also I would note you haven't deleted the likes of Jane Austen from the page. I understand that many Tolkien fans are passionate and would like him to be the best selling author of all time but this changing wikipedia to match your desired reality, isn't appropriate.

The Telegraph is a respected source so please don't delete any entries sourced from it. This isn't the appropriate avenue for your original research.

Perhaps just take a break from wikipedia or post here before making any changes. I hope you reflect on the above and consider if your behaviour is appropriate.

Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.123.150 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph is indeed a respected source, that doesn't mean they don't get thing wrong. The "picture article" is in effect not a piece of serious journalism, it doesn't even have a by-line, and by the URL appears to be something that appeared in a colour supplement. Moreover the TLS is a far more respected source, especially for literary matters.

If you have a problem with what is plain to most editors, that this is circular referencing, please raise it a the reliable sources noticeboard.

The Tale of Two Cities error is completely established, and the subject of at least two articles. The others you mention are also weakly sourced, and I am happy to remove them. I have not investigated Jane Austen, but will do so.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC).

I think most people would generally rate the Times and its supplements as less reputable than other news sources as they are part of the Murdoch family of outlets alongside the now defunct News of the World and Fox News as with those it generally should be considered with a large dose of salt.

Unless the article itself cites wikipedia there is no evidence other than your circumstantial original research to suggest circular referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.140.253 (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

removing little Little Prince and Tale of Two Cities edits

In the edit summary edit Rich Frambrough mentions his rationale is on this talkpage. However It appears absent. It was previous consensus that controversial edits by Rich would be discussed here prior to being made however it seems that has been ignored.

Other that books by Tolkien editor Rich Frambrough only seems to accept hard statistics deleting any entry based on academic or journalistic sources despite the consensus in the RFC to include these. As was discussed in that RFC the approaches are we only have entries for books that have hard data, or we accept broader sources.

I have also removed Lord of the Rings as this was published in as both three books and one and there seems to be none clear way those numbers could be counted. particular as this article from the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/09/best-selling-books-all-time-fifty-shades-grey-compare , suggest it has sold less tham 1 million copies in its home market.

I've found a BBC article (a gold standard in journalistic sources) on Tale of two cities it makes no reference to Wikipedia so there can't be a presumption of circular referencing.

Why did you remove Tolkien's books? Why are the Toronto Star and the Telegraph "weak sources"[1]? Moving LotR to the series section only may make sense, but removing both completely because you don't like the sourcing isn't really correct. Fram (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hobbit, 100 million, as stated by BBC[2] and Wall Street Journal[3]. Fram (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you and Rich Farmbrough not the same person? They were removed for consistency, due to the citogenesis issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Religious and political books

There is an eternal dispute whether to include religious and political books. The "sale figures" for these books are debatable, since in many cases these were simply distributed (like the placement of free bibles in hotel rooms) or forced on the people (Mao, Hitler, ...). When we had these books in this list, there were constant edit wars (because "my religious book surely sold more than your religious book", and "there isn't a Bible, there are many different ones and you may not add them up", and so on).

For this reason, there used to be a separate article, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-printed books (2nd nomination).

I would prefer to keep these out of this list, because of the endless debates and unreliability of many figures, but if there would be a consensus to include them anyway, then I would prefer to have them as a separate, fourth section. Fram (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you can keep them out of this list as it is the best selling books of all time, rather than novels. I think as with some novels if the facts are unclear then it can be covered in the opening. I would note that mein kampf has been in the article for sometime so that would suggest a certain bias.

This may come back to the topics discussed in the RFC on sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Political Books

This is the best selling books rather than novels page. The source for Communist Manifesto states sales rather than published. I would also query why Mein Kampf has been included for sometime but books from the left of the spectrum are removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf" is included because I hadn't noticed this, otherwise I would have removed it as well. The sentence indicating that such books are not included, which stood in the lead for many, many years, was recently removed without even an edit summary here. I reinstated it in my previous edit, which you reversed. Fram (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll remove Mein Kampf, the source states [4] "verkauft oder verschenkt", sold or given away. Politicians, parties, ... giving away their books shouldn't warrant inclusion in a list of best-selling books. Fram (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think books that are widely distributed but not sold can be discounted, for example religious texts or the Argos catalogue.

Is there then a question of if this becomes a best selling novel article rather than book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Also what defines an ideology? Ass the top 3 non fiction currently listed all propose specific approaches to personal development, children rearing and sexuality based on the specific ideological views of the author.

Even something like Hawking's Brief History of time could be considered ideological as it was setting out his theories on the universe which at the time of writing explicitly opposed the Higgs Boson. (not to get into the wider science v religion perspective of universe creation)

Also many novels put forward ideological bents. Rand wrote her entire philosophy via novels, and Orwell set out explicit political views, as did Dickens, Tolkien and Austen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Both the Narnia and the Lord of the Rings series are explicitly religious christian texts. I don't think you can remove Mein Kampf or the CM and leave Rand for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read LOTR if you think it is an "explicitly religious Christian text".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Your last comment is quite rude. Also LOTR is christian it is part of the muscular christ interpretation that was popular in the early 20th century. Even if you couldn't understand from reading the text, the Author stated it explicitly, sayingThe Lord of the Rings in particular as a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• The Narnia books have a simple allegorical interpretation, with Aslan as the Christ figure. No such interpretation can be applied to LOTR. If you extend consideration to the whole Legendarium, you can make arguments about Melkor and Satan, but as far as LOTR is concerned there is no explicit mention of a creator, no prayer, no confession, no saints, nothing associated with Christianity far less Catholicism in particular.
• This is however somewhat beside the point. The exclusion of political, philosophical and religious books, while it has been stated in the lead for a long time, is an ill-thought-out attempt to circumscribe the Bible, the Quran and the Little Red Book. The reason for excluding these is because we don't have anything like accurate figures, estimates vary by a factor of two or more - and are subject to inflation by boosterism. Essentially it's the same reason we exclude the public domain classics - not because they are public domain, but because there are simply no reliable figures. Even the figures we do have are not as reliably sourced as I would like. If you can put the effort into finding more reliable sources that would be of potentially far more value than simply making what appear to be oppositional changes to the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 00:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC).

Fram/Rich LOTR is very catholic there is in fact a whole trinity in its heroes. There is also an entire wikipedia article on the subject which I suspect having told you about you will go and edit to fit your world view. You are obviously very passionate about LOTR so perhaps you should step back and refrain from making any edits related to it?

If there are assumptions on the bible or Quran from reliable sources then they should be included. As there is no reliable sales data really beyond a few countries and none of that goes back past the 90s.

Again making accusations isn't in keeping with wikipedia general approach to conduct. I would however observe that the only edits you make are to remove books other than those by Tolkien particularly any book that might be placed above his work in the lists.

Also Rich/Fram I notice you are mentioned in that TLS article, as a subject linked to this article shouldn't you refrain from editing it, as is general wikipedia practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.83.20 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Reason for removing Lord of the Rings

I understand the reason for the removal of Lord of the Rings from the listing and, while I don't agree with it, I think it makes sense. However, if you will be removing it for "lack of comprehensive sales figures due to the length of time in publication which predate modern sales data collection" then this should be applied to every book published in the 1950s or before and I've noticed there are many on the list that match this. This feels like bias specifically against Lord of the Rings. I don't understand why those books get a pass using citation from popular media firms but not Lord of the Rings. If you want to enforce this rule, make it universal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mommid (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It already has to a degree, Alice in Wonderland, Dream of the Red Chamber, The Little Prince, Then There were None, the Bible, Quran, Don Quixote, etc have all been removed by editors who I feel are being overzealous. I personally think we should accept estimates on these books. Though there is the risk that estates and publishers seek to overinflate these numbers (the fact that an author's grandchildren can be living off the copyright, just shows how mad copyright law has gotten, but I digress). If there are other books with suspicious or unreliable numbers do feel free to be bold.