Talk:List of best-selling books/Archive 1

Country Flag

Scottish Flags are being used for Scottish Authors but British Flag for English Writers. It must be consistent. Either all British Authors must have British Flag or their all must have their respective flags —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.241.216 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand... could you clarify the issue? What's the problem with Scottish people being identified as such? I was under the impression that Scotland was distinct from the UK.--Agbdavis 17:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters now, since flags have been removed, but Scotland and England are two of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Hence Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. If one were to use the Scottish flag for Scottish authors, then one should logically use the English flag (rather than the British flag) for English authors. Aridd (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the Koran must be put on this page. I'm pretty sure it should be up there on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.139.176 (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

More work needed

MORE WORK NEEDED--Agbdavis 06:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The following books either need total counts, although we're pretty sure they'll make the list:

• The Three Musketeers
• Robinson Crusoe
• The most popular works of William Shakespeare, such as Romeo and Juliet
• Don Quixote
• Bhagavadgita
• Ramayana
• Mahabharata

The following books need references and then to be added to the list if these numbers are accurate:

• The Communist Manifesto - estimated 1 billion copies sold
• The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life Allegedly 120,000,000 copies sold (1968 to 1982, Published by Jehovah's Witnesses )
• You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth Allegedly 105,000,000 copies sold (Published by Jehovah's Witnesses )
• Scouting For Boys The BBC claim that this is the 4th best selling book (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3905077.stm) Not sure if this includes sales of the US Boy Scout Handbook, which was originally based on Scouting for Boys.Gareth Green 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The following books are already on the list, so won't be taken down, but they need estimated counts by an expert:

• Book of Common Prayer
• Pilgrim's Progress
• Foxe's Book of Martyrs
• Westminster Shorter Catechism
• Daily Light on the Daily Path
• My Utmost for His Highest

If you have other works you think should make the cut but don't feel like doing the work, please add just them to the lists above. Let us also try to keep this neat, if possible. Thank you :) --Agbdavis 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is/are mostly responsible for this list deserves mucho kudos.....fascinating, amazing.MKohut (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Averages

If you average out the number of bibles sold world wide since it was written you will find that the bible is the best selling book of all time and it is also the most printed book of all time. --24.242.67.86 (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think it belongs on the page. Like many other seemingly peripheral statements, it would imply partiality.--Agbdavis 07:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Counting

Some of these books, as it has already been discussed, will be very difficult to source for their numbers. Not being an expert, and looking at the age of some of these books, it seems like a nearly impossible task for at least some of them. I don't have a problem with someone adding a book from the above lists if they think that is sold more than Pride and Prejudice. Maybe adding them to the list would generate some discussion and bring in an "expert" or two - or get someone offended enough at the low estimate of their favorite book that a more accurate count could be obtained. So, I say- Why not edit away!- and lets sort it out here. If we wait - the research may never get done and I certainly don't know where to look for Don Quixote's figures.Brian0324 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would be interested to see one or two examples of well-referenced and well-documented sales figures, as a model to be followed. Can anybody point to an example? I really wonder if they exist at all. Fragesteller 01:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Authors

Re-reverting said edits, with over 1.8 million articles in English alone here, all of which could have "some people believe an invisible sky monster was responsible for this," the addition becomes redundant. Some people might believe that a moldy piece of bread wrote Winnie the Pooh, but that doesn't make it any more factual or relevant.Traffic Demon 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If millions of people believed Winnie the Pooh was written by that bread, it would be very relevant to an informative article on the subject. It might not be empirically factual, but that's different. I don't believe in UFOs and there is a similar problem of empirical evidence there, but that doesn't mean I can delete from Sylvia Brown's bio that she believes she was once abducted. My belief or yours is irrelevant, what is relevant is that it is a fact that many, many people believe in God's authorship of the Bible, and this traditional view should be taken into account and reported with appropriate caveats. This format has been worked out after a long series of edits and alterations, and it both reports empirical fact and acknowledges traditional views respectfully. If you wish to edit, please wait until further along in this discussion, after the community here has discussed it some. Thank you.--Agbdavis 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how many people believe in divine inspiration for any text, without supporting evidence, such attribution is meaningless. Discuss traditional views on their own page if you wish, they don't have a place here.

I note you chose to ignore me and reverted my edits again. I will, of course, be reverting your revertion of my revertion until this is settled. As I mentioned above, this form was arrived at after much discussion and editing, and I would appreciate it if you would stop changing it until we have finished discussing it.

I disagree that the traditional view of authorship of these religious texts should be removed. The question here is, who is the "author". Empirical fact says that it was probably a series of people, but millions believe that God/angels were the true authors of these texts. You are demanding an alteration of this fact because you think there is no "supporting evidence." But the point in question is not "are the traditional views valid?", it is "who is the author?" And for many people, millions around the world, the author is traditionally seen as God. This should be acknowledged in the article, with an appropriate note regarding the controversial nature of this. I am sorry you don't like it.

There is a practical element at work here, as well. Before, when only the empirical authors were listed, the page was changed several times a day, with continual edit wars. It was very common to see "God" simply replace the list of names in the Bible author column. The current iteration respects those virulently-held views, while also acknowledging the potential for doubt/empiricism.

I am reverting your edits. I ask you to please let us finish this discussion and reach a common understanding one way or the other before reediting.--Agbdavis 00:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If the question is "who is the author" as you say, then any claims of supernatural authorship should be removed because, despite what is believed by many, there is no evidence to support such claims. Believing a thing to be true does not cause it to be true.Traffic Demon 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim that is made regarding the Bible is that the "traditional view" holds that it was divinely inspired. This doesn't detract from the stated authorship of each of the 66 individual books of the Bible that are listed by name for the most part. I agree with Agbdavis, if there is no qualification to acknowledge the uniqueness of these Scriptures, then it will only invite more controversy and unfortunately vandalism. It is impossible to satisfy the neutrality that you require which tends to obscure the unique way that the Scriptures are understood to be authored by millions.

Whatever the "traditional view" of a religious text's authorship is, it is irrelevant to its actual authorship. Failing to mention that which cannot be shown to exist does not invite controversy, it invites rational thought. As to any uniqueness ascribed to the Bible, it is no more unique than any other religious text, containing nothing which is not either false or blatantly obvious.Traffic Demon 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many who argue from reason that the continuity and the consistency of the Biblical record (composed over a period of several thousand years by multiple human hands) are evidence of divine inspiration. But this is not the place to debate this. But the main point for this discussion is that in order for the article to be practically readable without all of the distractions of repeated edit wars and vandalism, is that a statement acknowledging all points of view regarding authorship is valid and to insist on one point of view being removed seems to be bias on your part to do so.Brian0324 21:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How is asking for a claim of authorship to be supported by evidence any sort of bias? Furthermore, how can you regard the Bible as having any sort of internal consistency when it contradicts itself in its first two chapters? No acknowledgment of all points of view is needed, since only those points of view supported by the evidence need be recognized.

Clearly you have some personal problem with the Bible, since its accuracy or internal consistency were never an issue here nor did anyone else bring them up. Brian is correct... you are obviously biased.

The purpose of an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia, is to inform readers, and to do so with as close to a neutral point of view as possible. The fact that these works are religious, and that they are so widely considered to be authored by these spiritual entities, is very relevant to them. It is, in fact, at the very core of their relevance to the world and almost certainly the reason they are on the list at all. A complete entry acknowledges these facts, even though as an agnostic I find them personally distasteful. A neutral point of view represents them with appropriate acknowledgement of the inherent controversy, as the current version of the page demands.

Furthermore, Wikipedia works by consensus. This is another policy. Consensus had been achieved after much effort and deliberation, and any further changes should have been discussed and addressed here first. I am changing your edits back. Again. Please do not remake them, at least until this discussion is done.--Agbdavis 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, the Bible's consistency was brought up by Brian0324, but thanks for paying attention. Whether or not religious texts are believed to be divinely inspired is completely irrelevant, regardless of how many people put stock in such absurdity. If you wish to inform readers that a book is held as divinely inspired by a particular group, do so in the entry for that book rather than for the entry for how many copies have been sold. Neutrality does not mean catering to the beliefs of all groups, and can best be achieved by sticking to the evidence alone.Traffic Demon 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he was talking about the consistency of the Biblical record, not the internal consistency of the Bible. Those are extraordinarily different things ;)

Actually, "sticking to the evidence alone" refers to an entirely empirical worldview, which is extraordinarily not neutral. It's the same view I hold, but nonetheless it represents an assertion that only that which is proveable is meritorious of reporting. There is a preponderance of opinion to the contrary.

If you will not accept my logic, then let me appeal to your sensibilities as a Wikipedia editor: as I mentioned, consensus is the manner in which Wikipedia works. I am going to change this back, and you appeal to see who agrees with you. A vote will be taken for and against, and on that basis we will decide. That seems fair enough. In the meantime, I will change it back (since as I mentioned, this has previously been the consensus version).--Agbdavis 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I threatened to request page protection on the article in light of Traffic Demon's relentless repeated editing (despite the four people who have reverting his edits in part or whole, which would dissuade me from perpetuating...) But further contemplation has led me to believe that it would probably be premature. Traffic Demon, assuming you read this, I repeat that the proper way to go about this would be to call for a vote of consensus on the matter. You will note I am not doing so, because I am satisfied with the current version and believe it already represents the consensus. If you wish to change this, then in light of the multiple people in such strong disagreement with you, who clearly represent an varied opposition on the matter rather than a single individual's agenda, it only makes sense and accords with Wikipedia policy to try to reach a new consensus by discussion and voting. I trust that you will realize that, and work further here before making your same edits again for the thirteenth time.--Agbdavis 04:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what consensus might be, you are insisting that unverifiable content be included in the entry. No amount of like-minded people will change the fact that there remains no evidence for supernatural authorship of any book. Without that evidence, such claims are irrelevant.Traffic Demon 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that what is under dispute is your claim that this is unverifiable content. This is a question of the meaning of "verifiable". Let us look at an example, one you yourself have called up: the Bible page. This page talks at length about the traditional interpretation of the authorship, while acknowledging the secular view at the same time... exactly like what we tried to do here. Is your view that the traditional view of the authorship be removed from there because it is unverifiable? It is just as unverifiable there as it is here, and just as relevant, and indeed is the same information.

"Verifiable" refers to verifying that this is a widely held view, at least from what I can see. It would be unverifiable for me to claim that it is a traditional view that a purple hippo wrote the Bible. I believe this is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia:Verifiability, and furthermore that any dispute should be handled according to the Wikipedia policy for handling them: i.e. by reaching a consensus on the interpretation of policy. The solution is not your one-man edit war against everyone else. Surely you see that it is unproductive and just frustrating everyone? If you think you are right, please continue to discuss it and we can all decide together.--Agbdavis 20:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say thay God wrote the Bible, it says that the traditional Christian view is that God wrote the Bible. This is a wholly different statement, and easily verifiable, and is verified at Bible and many other places in WP. Johnbod 21:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there is nothing controversial about recognizing the traditional view. To put it in this list without the supernatural claims shown make the Scriptures appear that they are noteworthy only as literature - which is more than an understatement of their importance to culture and art alike. Too, it makes the "secular" books on the list have some context - just how many have they sold - compared to those writings that are held in such high regard as religious texts. More food for thought. However, it seems that no amount of discussion will alter the fact that this page has been edited excessively by someone with an exclusive and narrow agenda that is out of bounds with WP editing policy already.Brian0324 14:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Restricting claims to those supported by the evidence does not narrow anything, unless "reality" is too narrow a set for you. Invoking that which has not been shown to exist accomplishes nothing, regardless of how many might share in the delusion.Traffic Demon 15:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is not in question. This is an issue of bias. So, is it understood that you refuse to recognize any consensus or take a vote? Your unwillingness to improve this article in any way other than removing content is evident.Brian0324 15:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One must consider Mahabharata. Published in many languages it is one of the all time best selling books in India. Bhagvad Gita which is a part of Mahabharata should also be considered as stand alone books. Mahabharata, Bhagvad Gita and Ramayana three classics of India would make to these list effortlessly

I will add them to the list at the top of the page; I encourage you to locate reliable numbers on these works and add them in the appropriate place. Thanks :)--Agbdavis 05:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence? Why, the evidence is all around you! God did inspire the Bible, and alot of things in the Bible that were once considered religious hooey, are now proven as fact. The Bible is true. -Yancyfry 04:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"religious hooey..proven as fact"? Get a blog instead of trolling here. It might help you. Let the Bible be it's own defense.Brian0324 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for this, folks.--Agbdavis 08:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If the evidence is all around me, why are you unable to provide any specific examples? Claims of supernatural inspiration for any work remain unverifiable, and therefore inappropriate for this article.Traffic Demon 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claims of the supernatural of virtually any sort remain unverifiable for the most part, don't they? But this is not Skeptipedia, as much as I might like it to be. The standard is not proof of fact, but proof that others believe it is fact. Unfortunately, the world and Wikipedia simply work in this way: consensual reality. Absent evidence, many many people believe in divine inspiration, and accordingly that viewpoint is granted space when discussing those works. We can't pass judgment on these people and eliminate their wholly relevant and critically important interpretations of these works from Wikipedia and the pertaining articles, we can only report them with as great an attempt towards a NPOV as possible. If you want to fight this battle, you have to start on the ground. Protest intelligent design hearings, like I do, for example.--Agbdavis 08:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Authors

I have removed claims of supernatural authorship for the Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon since such claims cannot be verified.

I am reverting your edits: it is relatively simple for me to point you to any number of sources which verify that this is the traditional view. The Catechism, for example. Just because we can't empirically verify authorship, that doesn't negate the preponderance of traditional views, which exist and should be reported as such.--Agbdavis 06:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

EDITING

I have changed the entries for Mormon and Bible, so that the Koran will not be the only book on list by God. That is not fair.

Quran

Number

The current version of this page lists the number of Qurans sold as 800 million. This was the number listed here when I first saw this page, from I know not what source. It seems reasonable given the history of the Qu'ran. Many people, however, appear to believe that the Qu'ran should be at the top of the list of best-selling books, and have repeatedly changed the number sold to "five to six billion", in mimicry of the numbers given for the Bible. This might be true, although I find it very doubtful. But please provide a source before you change it, don't just change it because you want the Qu'ran to be at the top.--Agbdavis 18:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my figure - it was I think 200 million before, which was ludicrously low. It's a pure guesstimate but cautious - I think it works out as 1 copy for every 1.6? Muslims now alive. The rationale I used is on this page somewhere - end of 2006 maybe. Given they were only printed from I think the 19th century in any numbers, the figure will be much lower than the Bible I think. Before that they were manuscript only (in Arabic). Johnbod 03:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Author

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)

The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings is a unique novel, I agree, but this isn't "best-selling novels" article, it's "best selling books" and The Lord of the Rings has been sold as 3 books in two different years. 100 million is the total of the 3 books. Each book has sold 33 million.

In my opinion:

-in "best-selling books" each book with 33 million.

-in "best-selling series" the entire series with 100 million.

Like Harry Potter. What do you think?

This has been discussed before, & I think it's clear it is only one novel. Division into volumes & separate initial publication was very common for earlier (18th & 19thC) novels that we would never think of as a series now. I think it should only be in the books list. I'm sure most of the sales from the 70's & 80's were of the single volume paperback. Johnbod 13:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't List of best-selling novels. Anyway we have never discussed about this after the split between books/series.

The author of LotR clearly intended it to be a single book, and it was sold as one concurrently with the three-volume editions as soon as it became popular enough to be economically feasible. The utilitarian separation of the book into three volumes does not seem to me to be sufficient reason to declare it to be three separate books. This is in stark contrast with Rowling's books, which have been published sequentially, separated by years in between them, and are considered by everyone (including the author and publisher) to be separate books entirely. I agree that the individual books deserve a place on this list inasmuch as they merit one, and that the series as a whole belongs on the series page. I hope we can put this matter to rest now. Thank you for your time.--Agbdavis 06:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you in the mind of Tolkien? Anyway the 3 books have been published sequentially, in 2 years. Sequentially as Harry Potter.

Well, I was reading this one website called Wikipedia, and the Lord of the Rings article said that "It was originally published in three volumes in 1954 and 1955 (much to Tolkien's annoyance, since he had intended it to be a single volume)", and the listed reference agreed. So... yeah...--Agbdavis 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is "List of best-selling books" and not "List of best-selling books intented to be a single volume by author".

The initial premise is incorrect. While exact figures for LotR sales are impossible to compile the general figure of 'over 100 million' which has been used for over a decade now (as a conservative estimate) referred to the story as a whole... 100 million copies of each of the three books. --CBD 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an initial premise. It's written in the "notes" section. Read the article. Thanks!

Mr. Anonymous, you have added the same information to the article three times without explaining why. I don't see how the publishing dates and other information about LotR belong on this page, they have no bearing on its best-seller status. We understand you either really love the book or really hate it, but regardless, that information belongs in its article and not cluttering up the Notes section. Please stop.--Agbdavis 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You have deleted the same interesting informations four times without explaning why and without answer to my ideas in talk page. You have to respect other ideas. You have modified four times some "both ideas" informations to "my ideas are better" informations. Respect other ideas! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.161.186 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, first of all, the information is misleading. "originally published as a series of 3 books by the publishing house" implies just what it says, that LotR was three books rather than one. I don't see the point to this beyond a mildly malicious one. Additionally you have added information about the dates each volume was published, which is entirely irrelevant. The dates on which each volume was published is important, but it doesn't belong here. It has no bearing. What belongs here is a note on why it is on this list, to forestall the continual questions about it. And that is what I have on the page. Why you insist on adding this other information which is irrelevant is beyond me.--Agbdavis 20:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Lord of the Rings, although written as a single book, was originally published in three volumes" is misleading! It implies just what it says, that LotR is a single book rather than a series. My sentence is neutral. And it's true! Read the source! In the list there is written: "published from 1954 to 1955"... we have to explain 'why'. But you have deleted these informations... The Lord of the Rings: specific situation, more ideas, specific details. Please, stop vandalism!

On what grounds do you say that The Lord of the Rings is a "series" rather than a single book? The author called it a single book. The publisher calls it a single book. It is described in the story itself as a single book. It is a single book. That it was originally published in three volumes, solely due to issues with publication costs, is just a historical curiosity... there isn't even any interruption in the story at the 'volume breaks' - each picks up exactly where the last left off. Because it is all one story. The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings together might be called a 'series', but LotR alone is a single book. --CBD 12:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say that The Lord of the Rings is a "single book" rather than a series? It has been published as a series of 3 books by the publishing house. Anyway I respect your opinion, you have to respect my opinion: Wikipedia has to be neutral! Why don't you like a neutral point of view?

I feel, and I believe others may agree, that you are not proposing a neutral point of view. If I say that the sky is usually blue, and you say it is usually azure, you are not proposing the more neutral view. You are proposing an alternate version of the facts. But since most people think that the author's intent, publisher's eventual intent past monetary concerns, and general consensus of the english-speaking world is that the sky is generally said to be blue and LotR is generally said to be a single book, to introduce weasel words which imply differently (as a collection of informational notes which detail individual publishing dates, etc. would imply) would be a mistake. I hope I have explained sufficiently and that others agree.--Agbdavis 07:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I while usually do not go against the grain have to on this one. I say the books should be listed seperatly for this reason. Not everyone buys them in a set. I myself have owned all of the books but have owned more than a couple copies of certain of the books because of my preferance for that book. I know lots of people who like certain "volumes" or "books" Depending on which way you prefer to say it. If they are sold as seperate editions they should be listed seperatly only because for information sake I would like to know which ones sold more than others. It isn't about the intent but sales figures are sales figures and if they have been sold seperatly than listing them seperatly would simply be providing accurate information. I could care less who intended them as what. But if it has so been done seperatly shouldn't we list them as such if only to report the information accuratly? XXLegendXx 03:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

But virtually every book on here has been sold in many editions... we aren't demanding figures for them. Nor would it be practical to do so for any of them. Essentially, all that would happen would be that Lord of the Rings would no longer be on the list. Obviously I am biased, but it's still true. If you want to do that, we would need a tremendously complicated table. If anyplace, this information should be listed on the LotR novel page.--Agbdavis 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading about Watership Down, I note that it has appeared in more than 300 different editions. Including edition information is simply not feasible.--Agbdavis 18:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

If you are going to add something to this list, please make sure that the item is one book, not a series of books, and that you have numbers of copies sold, with appropriate references. I have had to remove series of books, like Harry Potter, several times. They belong in the page "list of best-selling series of books."

Please read the previous commentary below and the linked article, as well, before you decide that the estimated number of Bibles is too high. This estimate bears in mind that the Bible was the first book to every be in print, and takes into account the many numbers of Bibles that have been sold over the centuries, not just at the current time.

If you feel the list is too eurocentric or the like, please add other books from other cultures along with their appropriate, accurate information. Just like the rest of Wikipedia, there is an inescapable bias on behalf of the majority and we need your help to combat it. Thank you. --Agbdavis 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but these books are out of copyright & don't have PR's trumpeting their figuresJohnbod 15:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference

This page needs reference badly. Also, where's the Koran? And 6 billion bibles - that's at least one for every Christian who ever lived - does seem just a little high. EamonnPKeane 13:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, The bible number to me seems low. 1 bible per person is way too low. Think about it: multiple bibles in every library in the world, every hotel room in north america, hundreds in each individual church's library, hundreds more in each church's congregation, thousands at any seminary or christian college, plus each Christian usually has MUCH more than just 1 - I'm just 24 years old and I can count 7 or 8 just off the top of my head that i've owned (received from church camps, mission trips, sunday school graduations, general wear and tear, etc.). multiply that times 4 persons in my family and we have 40+ in our house alone, not to mention concordances, prayer books, atlases, indexes, etc.... and i'm not bizzare, i'm a typical red state protestant :), i think most all my friends' families are the same **not to drone on and on, just saying that to me, the 6 billion seems awful LOW... i read in an almanac somewhere the number was 10+ billion, but i dont know. i do know that there are many many more bibles around than the average person would think (go to any bookstore, barnes and noble, whatever, and look at the 'bible' section-- think about it, all the different languges or versions or colors, but it's all the SAME BOOK. B&N would never have a whole section entitiled "John Grisham's Runaway Jury", but they do have an entire section with the printed sign "Bibles". the volume of bibles existing really is amazing. Ok, that's enough rambling, just adding in my own info. June 26, 2006

• Yes, the number seems to pass the "smell test" to me, as well. The Gideon Society prints 63 million per year. I'm a (moderate Protestant) Christian so I have to concede that my viewpoint might be skewed, although I'm trying to make a neutral assessment.Apollo 15:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• While I'm running my mouth, I see that the publication of the Qu'ran has been changed from 200 million to 800 million, which seems much more realistic to me, even compensating for what I would expect are a higher standard rates of poverty and illiteracy in a Bell Curve of adherents to Islam (as opposed to professed Christians). Also, Western groups send tens of millions of Bibles to Africa every year; I have no idea how prevalent a similar phenomenon exists among Islamic proselytizers.

Apollo 15:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your addition to the notes... it's well-written, pertinent, and perfectly-placed. Good work!--Agbdavis 19:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

___

We also lack asian sources. As of 1981, Eiji Yoshikawa's "The Stone and the Sword" (that's a litteral translation, maybe not the accepted english title) had already been published to 120 million copies.

it's probably "Musashi (宮本武蔵, Miyamoto Musashi)". [1] Katsuya 06:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

-- And what about the Ramayana and the T'ai-Shang Kan-Ying P'ien Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution? The title of this list should be English Language Books and there should be separate lists for other languages.6 November 2006

Author Dan Brown's website claims "some 70 million copies worldwide" for The Da Vinci Code: http://www.danbrown.com/meet_dan/ Fragesteller 21:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, nice work Fram, digging up all of those references. Goed uitgevoerd! Too bad the rest of the article is not nearly so well sourced. Fragesteller (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Source

I think it was taken from: The Top 10 of Everything, 1997 (DK Pub., 1996, pp 112-113), as cited at http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html. However we cannot confirm its accuracy.

If you can't confirm the accuracy, then this shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Publishers are of course going to inflate their claims on distribution of their best-sellers. This article desperately needs a single unbiased source, or it else should be deleted. Every entry should have at least one citation. --IanOsgood 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For example, why is Gone with the Wind included, when Amazon's list has eight other works of fiction ahead of it in its list (1. Jonathan Livingston Seagull, 2. The Exorcist, 3. Jaws, 4. God's Little Acre, 5. Catch 22, 6. To Kill a Mockingbird, 7. The Thorn Birds, 8. Peyton Place, 9. Gone with the Wind). --IanOsgood 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The list is biased towards English. Where is the Koran? Where are the oriental epics like the Mahabharata and the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature? --IanOsgood 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the Mahabharata survived in various oral/abridged forms until relatively recently - when was it first printed? Even now I doubt the full thing it is enormously common in print. The Chinese novels were also restricted to an elite class for a long time.Johnbod 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember...

Not everyone alive is a Christian. Only about a third of the world can claim that are indeed a Christian. For 6 billion to an accurate number, it would mean each christian citizen would, on average, own three copies of the Bible. With an international christian family size average being around three persons, one would have to assume that each family owns nine copies of the Bible. That just isn't believable.

While your argument that libraries and churchs contain multiple copies holds some merit, I don't personally feel that these establishments hold enough copies for the worldwide tally to vastly surpass 6 billion.

The estimate, to me, seems rather large or slightly exagerated at best.

-Blue State Atheist

Yes, it is believable -- see the above reference. Most 'from birth' Christian families will have way more than 9 bibles per home -- kids receive many at different times in their life from church, bible school, camps, etc.. parents receive many, through their own purchase or bible studies, etc... as i said above, my guess is 40+ variations for 4 people, NOT including bible atlases, concordances, etc... Are some of these in the attic? Sure. Are some of these in the back of the bookshelf due to wear and tear? Sure. But i'm not saying i read all 40 at once, I'm saying 40 of them have been printed and placed in my home as an end user at some time.~ Anon from above, Aug 10 2006

My family has two copies. I was born a Roman Catholic, my immediate family consists of Roman Catholics, as well as my fathers side. My mothers side consists of a variety of Christian variants. I'd say 30 people altogether. That is a grand total of 90 Bibles, according to my math, correct? Well, I asked around, my entire extended family has a grand total of 12 Bibles. That's about 78 Bibles off the mark. And most of my family is EXTREMELY religious. There aren't 78 institutions in the immediate area that would house a Bible. Looks like your theory doesn't hold any water.

~Blue State Atheist

I actually said "that's at least one for every Christian who ever lived", i.e. every Christian for the last 2,000 years.

Just to add that the bible was the first book printed by Gutenberg in the 14th century, so 5 to 6 billion bibles printed since then doesn't seem too much. I mean, if Harry Potter can sell 350 million copies in less than 10 years, I don't see why the bible couldn't top 5 to 6 billion over 500 years span.

I would have to agree that the Bible could have sold 6 billion copies. I think that the hotel room example helps inflate the numbers. The MGM Las Vegas would have over 5,000 copies alone, then think that almost every hotel room in the US would have a copy, and then think that those bibles are taken or destroyed and often have to be replaced. As for the "family" discussions, they are anecdotal and therefore pointless. No list like this will ever be complete or comprehensive, it is something to think about, and argue about, and for that this article achieves its purpose. 64.231.50.154 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This may underestimate the count. I'm an atheist, but have recieved at least three bibles as presents throughout my life.

The problem is most Bibles aren't sold, but given away for free. The description of the article says ""Best-selling" refers to the estimated number of copies sold of each book, rather than the number of books printed or currently owned" (emphasis added). Shouldn't that number be substantially lower? -Menestheus

All of the Bibles that are given away have been sold by the printer to a Christian group. The fact that they are then given away is irrelevant, inasmuch as I can see.--Agbdavis 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

By sales, I think most people would like to see a book sale defined as a "purchase of a book by the end-user or a purchase made for a specific, singular individual." You buying a book, your granny buying a book as a gift for you should count. A campaign buying promotional books to be given out willy-nilly would not. What about the phonebook? Bleh, there's so many ways to look at this. I think a breakdown is the only fair way of doing this (best selling fiction, best-selling/most-printed religious book, etc).

I agree. Bibles are not sold. They are given away for free. The Bible is a public domain book. If I were a publishing company I could print my own version of the bible with out needing to ask permission from the source. It might be the most printed and the most distributed, but definitley not the most purchased.

On top of that, most bibles printed have been used by missionaries (which is why it has been printed in pretty much every language). They print these things in mass quanities and get huge discounts for being "non-profit". Considering they get these huge discounts and that the bible is public domain it must have the lowest average of earned income than any book printed.

--digitalbeachbum 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Series

I'm not really understanding this. If the article is called "List of best-selling books" then why do we have the Harry Potter series combined? Is using the series only done so it doesn't take up half the list?Eric Sieck 22:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And why is The Lord of the Rings listed as a 'series'? It is a single novel that was originally published in three volumes due to paper shortages in Britain after WWII. It isn't a series or a 'trilogy' at all.220.233.127.114 01:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you both, and am taking steps to change both of these things. The Lord of the Rings is one book in three volumes, and the Harry Potter books were very obviously many books, and have never been represented as anything else.Agbdavis 04:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

List of best selling authors

To what end should it be updated? What is the least amount of books an author should be listed as to be considered one of the best selling? Perhaps there should be a new wiki page for best selling authors.--Sam Weber 21:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think that more than ten interesting authors would merit its own page, but input from others would be very much appreciated.--Agbdavis 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Versions of The Bible

I believe it would be fair to add to "The Bible" that it includes all the numerous versions of it. Because of the different versions it is possible that each Christian family own more than one version therefore effectively multiplying the number of Bibles sold.

The problem is that the same thing is true about the Qu'ran, the Curse of Capistrano, and most other books which are translated into other languages. Many millions of the numbers involved are redundant translations or original versions, not just those for the Bible. To do this seems to be unfairly discriminatory towards adherents of the Bible, casting an aspersion on the numbers involved.--Agbdavis 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your argument but i must also point out that, even though The Qu'ran is translated in to different languages that does not mean there are different versions of it. different versions of it would mean they say different (or slightly different) commands from book to book. Also I absolutely apologize for any discrimination that may have come from my previous edit, as that was most certainly not my point at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.42.120 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Different versions of it means that there is different wording in the translation from the Arabic, not that the content has been significantly changed. That's quite literally what a version is. And I don't think you're being discriminatory, you're just trying to show your viewpoint and you're being entirely cordial about it, which I appreciate. I respect your faith, but I believe we must adhere to Wikipedia policy of Neutral Point of View as closely as possible, to make it equally useful for people of all faiths. I hope you agree.--Agbdavis 04:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shopping list should be on this list on the same basis. Most people (in the developed world at least) write a shopping list once in a while. Of course not all of the lists are identical but there are going to be sufficient common elements (milk, bread, pile cream etc) to constitute an identifiable work product just as one recognises hugely different version of the bible as different forms of the same original concept. A shopping list also has the interesting characteristic of (usually) not being produced mechanically but by hand. It might be said that shopping lists are not sold - but that's incorrect; of course you buy the list and simply populate it with trip specific items. So unless anyone objects I'm going to put shopping list at the top of the list with estimated sales of 15 billion which allows for approx half of the population of the world to have written 5 shopping lists, an absurd under estimate in my humble opinion, but no more whacky than some of the nonsense in the existing article. Dr Spam (MD) 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Letter to Santa / FC should be here on the same sort of basis. Say 1 billion? Dr Spam (MD) 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are deliberately mis-characterizing the issue. With your logic, every shopping list would contain a close approximation of the same material. That is clearly not so, or else no one would even need a list (we could just use The List available at the store or dictate one into the speakwrite). There are some versions of the Bible that vary more than others, but they are virtually all attempts at translation of what are essentially the same texts. The variations are not significant enough, for the most part, to warrant a breakdown by version.

I also should point out that if we were to do that for the Bible, we would have to do it for every text here. And since almost every text has had revisions (some quite significant... Pilgrim's Progress, for example) that would make it an insurmountable task to try to compile a coherent list. The list is flawed, certainly, but it seems to be the most useful and best version.--Agbdavis 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

research

It's already been said. This needs some research to back up the numbers. Not sure where Pilgrim's Progress and Foxe's Book of Martyrs fall in the rankings - but it was a glaring omission - even on Amazon's site. The compounding of the years makes these older works that have been reprinted countless times worthy of consideration.Brian0324 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a look previously for figures on the Pilgrim's Progress, and there simply doesn't seem to be any out there (at least not that I can find). Also puzzling to me is the absence of In His Steps, which should definitely be on there. BenC7 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Author of Quran

I see the authors point when he wrote "dictated to Muhammed". i fully agree with that point. however writing " and to his companions" would clash with my religion and me, in which we believe the God reveled the Qur'an only to The Prophet Muhammed.

It clashes with my relgion to put that it was definitively dictated to Muhammad, since I am agnostic. If we cater to your beliefs, why not cater to mine and call it nonsense? Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, as is appropriate for a reference work.--Agbdavis 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to say that "Allah" is the author of the Quran, especially considering that the actual people who penned the words are given for the Bible. BenC7 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this and added a relevant note for the Qu'ran, the Bible, and the Book of Mormon.--Agbdavis 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

But I am definitely sure that saying that "Muhammed and his companions" were the ones who wrote the Quran offends Muslims to whom I proudly belong. The comparison with the Bible is wrong because the Bible DOES list the people who penned it, which is not true in case of the Quran. So if we speak about the Bible, we should do it the Christan way. And if we speak about the Quran, we should do it the Muslim way. ~~merohero~~

I thought my "dictated to .." formula was less likely to cause complaints. We should probably go back to that. Johnbod 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but will not revert if you do it.--Agbdavis 10:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok - done Johnbod 18:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late here, but I must disagree with this wording. This version (dictated to) is the same than to say that Allah is the author. Although I understand that saying that the Quran was written by Muhammed could offend some Muslims, I am afraid that an encyclopedia cannot state that a book has been written by a supernatural being. The best way to present it, I think, would be to say "According to (...), it was dictated (...)". I'll tag it while this is further discussed. Any thoughts? --Childhood's End 20:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my original position: it should have Muhammad and companions listed as author, with an appropriate note (already present) below. This keeps all the claims of the religious books equal as well as respects their beliefs, without necessitating a paragraph in the table beside each one as explanation, making it look awkward and defeating the purpose of a concise table.--Agbdavis 07:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

God (Allah) revealed The Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel.

I completely respect that you believe that, but I don't. I do not insist that "the Quran is a work of fiction" be inserted into the article, however, because I believe in the guideline that Wikipedia should strive for an NPOV.--Agbdavis 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How could Muhammad have been the author if he was illiterate?

It's my understanding that he dictated the books to his companions; that is why the authorship is given on this page as "Muhammad and companion", with the note at the bottom indicating the beliefs of Muslims that the authorship is actually direct from God. But were we to ascribe authorship to Allah, that would be unfairly prejudiced in favor of Islamic interpretation of things. And as I have said, it is equally as inappropriate to cater to Muslims as it would be to cater to any other group.--Agbdavis 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Made 3 edits to reflect different views. Why not just present the prevailing traditional views? If we tried to address every speculation the chart could not hold the information and it would continually draw the ire of any POV pushers.Brian0324 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess what you have done is functional, but it sure isn't pretty. It looks downright clunky to me, especially in light of what it looked like before. Alas.--Agbdavis 20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not good enough with the html - but if there was a way to condense the notations (i.e.: see below) and direct the reader to the notes section with a click - it might be an improvement.Brian0324 21:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

new additions

The star wars books are considiered a series so they should not really be here, also 2 books do not have an estimate on them, surely they sohuld b deleted until that is sorted out.

- Agreed about series; I'm not sure about the Almanac on that basis either. If series are to be included, Sherlock Holmes would probably beat all the ones in the current list (if we had the figures - as always). I don't agree about books with no estimate - you are never going to get accurate figures on books centuries old. If you go that way you have to restrict the list to books post ?1945 only. These are the only ones with accurate figures - see discussions on the Bible above. Obviously we need to get the best estimates we can but these are always quoted in the badly-documented lists (the ones that aim at all-time world-wide coverage anyway) that are the only sources for this list.

Since the childrens list is US-only, it should maybe go to the US best selling books list, not here. Johnbod 10:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Little Prince

Why don't you add The Little Prince in this list? 50,000,000 copies sold —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.17.130.208 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Reference that & it can go in - but nb the children's books list is now unmasked as (suprise, suprise) USA sales only Johnbod 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

The whole not allowing series of books to do into this list seems to be going unheeded, see Consensus above. This whole list really needs a clean up. If no one had an objections i will get rid of the series books. le Dan 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

good idea - Johnbod 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, in my opinion it's better you add in this article a top ten of book series: 1) Star Wars - 2)Harry Potter - 3) The Lord of Rings - 4) The Chronicles of Narnia - etc.

Well that would be ok, but I think Sherlock Holmes, Poirot from Agatha Christie & maybe other detectives would be in on that basis. The Almanack should logically go to that list also. Johnbod 17:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have detectives' datas?

I am revamping the page and removing the series, Almanac, and the like, and making it a page of best-selling books, as it is intended. Best-selling series is another page, agreed. EDIT: okay, it's done. Check list of best-selling series of books, and add these other series, if you have a chance.--Agbdavis 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrong! Lots mistakes:

1) You have forgotten Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (87 millions) and other Harry Potter's books.

So add them, or wait until I find the time to do so. Sheesh. --Agbdavis 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

2) The Lords of The Rings should be in list of best-selling series with 100 millions, and, in list of best-selling books, 3 single books with 33,3 millions each: because 100 millions is the total Volume 1+Volume 2+ Volume 3.

It's one book. This has been discussed. Did you read the notes in the article?--Agbdavis 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

3) Consensus has decided "it's better you add in THIS article a top ten of book series", but you have created a new article.

Feel free to move the new page to this one and make it a part of it if you feel this is necessary. I thought it was meritorious of its own page, since there have been lots of high-selling series. --Agbdavis 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway the link in "See also" section don't run... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.161.117 (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

• well agbdavis says it needs work, which it does. Personally I am ok with the series list on its own page Johnbod 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes section

Why are the books listed in the Notes section not included in the list? 120M copies of a religious book (Jehovah's Witnesses) should be on there if the bible and koran are listed. The Notes section does not explain this. They should be included, or removed from the Notes section.

- like other things there they are waiting for a reference, and also maybe an article - how big are they, when published etc. Johnbod 21:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put two lists at the top for purposes of work to be done to answer this concern. --Agbdavis 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these should just be removes, so I will put them here:

• The Three Musketeers needs counting.
• Robinson Crusoe needs counting.
• The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life 120,000,000 copies sold (1968 to 1982, Published by Jehovah's Witnesses )
• You Can Live Forever In Paradise On Earth 105,000,000 copies sold (Published by Jehovah's Witnesses

Johnbod 13:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

They're at the top of the page.--Agbdavis 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry - didn't see them. I have put that section above the contents box for clearer visibility Johnbod 10:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the Book of Martyrs and Pilgrim's Progress should be removed until we can get some kind of estimate for their sales? It seems inconsistent as is, but I looked for a half hour online and couldn't find any references. I might have to hit the library.--Agbdavis 04:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE add context to this list!

A list this potentially controversial and unusual really needs to have more than a blank space between the article title and the first item. Best-selling according to whom? Using what qualifications and rubrics? Compiled by what authorities and confirmed by what sources? Why is the table of contents after the list? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I have added a rough introduction to the page and taken your suggestions.--Agbdavis 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I have merged the page List of best-selling series of books since it appears that it will solve a lot of hassle, be easier to read, and won't surpass length guidelines. I hope everyone agrees. I have flagged the now-superfluous other page for deletion.--Agbdavis 21:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Books in the list

The Bible and the Qu'ran as well as the common prayer book shouldn't be in there, neither should the dictionary and the quotations of Mao as histroy shows that a bible was customary for Christians ad not having one could see you in disfavour, while the quotations of Mao was a book which you could be brutally punished for not having so it shouldn't count. No religious book should count as they are often requirements, and neither should reference books as they don't require skill, creativity or imagination to write. Only fiction and some non-fictional books as well as others like self-help, scientific theory or economic theories should count. You cannot include books like a science textbook in here, but The God Delusion could be listed, as could any of the Lord of the Rings books. Harry Potter and the Phliosopher's Stone is the real all-time bestseler. These lists are untrue, just look at the all-time highest-grossing movies list, which draws up a list adjusted for inflation as well as a non-adjusted one. This must have the literary version of that here.

I just read my Bible because I enjoy it. Actually, I have several copies - just for fun. So, what you really want is List of best-selling novels? Get a blog, it might help.Brian0324 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Many books in the list are a mandatory reading at school. Many books in the lists are bought as a present by persons aren't going to read them. We can't start considering the causes behind each purchase of the books if we want to make a list at all. Why exclude religion from the list? --RR' 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously nonsense. Many, many people have bought some of these religious texts for enjoyment; disqualifying them because they have been essentially mandatory for certain times means that we would have to discard any book that has been mandatory, which can include much of the fiction, as RR noted. Failing that, we would have to parse out how much of the sales were due to enjoyment purposes, which is clearly impossible. I also think it's pretty ludicrous to claim that reference books don't require "skill, creativity, or imagination" to write and then go on to allow "economic theories". And if you can think of a parallel and useful list like the movies one, feel free. But since price isn't on here, only raw numbers of sold (which doesn't change in time), I will be curious to see what you want.--Agbdavis 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Other Entries

The works of Shakespeare must have sold a sufficient number. Also, though I don't know whether this is true, but "The Natural History of Selborne" is alledgedly one of the best-selling books of all time. 88.109.213.26 11:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists George Simenon as a an author who should have been very high on both the best-selling author list and the best selling book-series list (Maigret). Here's what it says: Simenon in numbers Total number of novels and volumes of short stories, including pseudonymous works: about 450 Maigret episodes: 103 (75 novels and 28 short stories) Psychological novels (non-Maigret novels, published as Simenon): 117 Translations into 55 languages Published in 44 countries 1,400,000,000 books sold (1935-1997) Films based on his works: about 50 According to the Index Translationum, Simenon is sixteenth most translated author in the world, the fourth among French language authors, and the first among Belgians.

Removed attribution to supernatural sources since claims of authorship by such sources cannot be verified.

Traffic Demon 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Traffic Demon

Deathly Hallows

I'm pretty sure the 72.1 million number is wrong...I think it's been discussed on the Deathly Hallows article too. Unless someone gets a reliable source it should be removed. 66.41.62.136 04:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Justin Bacon 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This figure is clearly wrong, for a variety of obvious reasons. The true number is probably in the 15-20 million range. Presumably, official sources will confirm this before the end of July. Fragesteller 17:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no confirmation on the actual sales figures as of the end of July. Fragesteller 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw an article that said Scholastics had sold 11.5 million US copies in the first 10 days. The first number is clearly wrong since they had only sold an additional 3.2 million copies in days 2 thru 10.

I have removed the figure of 72.1 million. It is obviously wrong, for the reasons discussed above. There has never been any evidence provided for it beyond the original, clearly incorrect source. All follow-up sales figures (for instance, those discussed on the Deathly Hallows entry) are consistent with total sales figures well below 30 million to date. (For instance, there are only 14 million copies of the American edition currently in print, and not all have been sold.) Fragesteller 21:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This book is the fastest selling book of all time and one whose sales figures are among the best-documented of any book ever. If the article doesn't present credible sales figures for this well-documented book, the article won't be taken seriously. The figure of 72+ million copies sold will undoubtedly be reached eventually, but it hasn't been reached yet. Any listing that claims such unrealistic figures should be corrected, for now. Fragesteller (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be sourced or deleted

I cannot believe you folks are mired down and slinging arrows at one another, passionately debating the existence of God and the inspiration of Scripture here, while NOBODY, friggin' NOBODY, has bothered to provide any verification or documentation or justification for the existence of these lists!

How. Silly. How. Juvenile. What. A. Waste. Of. Time.

• Yes, I see the two childrens-book lists are documented, and a very few scattered citations in the other lists. But otherwise, this is a completely worthless article because where the hell did these figures and these rankings come from, huh??

• Yes, I see the note about "educated guesses from experts." But that ain't good enough for an encyclopedia. What experts? Where? When? Why is there not a definite source for every ranking and every number in this article? And this article has been sitting here for TWO whole years already!

• And yes, I see the line about "This list was originally compiled in 1997, and has been updated using the sources shown, and others, including the articles on each title." This is flatly untrue. There are NO sources shown for most books, and a quick check of the wikiarticles for many of them reveals NO publication-figure sources there, either. But NOBODY has bothered, apparently, to check this blithe statement for accuracy. But oh yes, we can argue for days about everything else in the universe, can't we? How freakin' sad.

Take your philosophical and theological debates to the talk pages of whatever articles cover your belief systems - meanwhile, go do some real research instead of endless blather, and provide some honest-to-God documentation for this article. Otherwise, it should be proposed for deletion as precisely the kind of crappy, unverified info that ruins the credibility of Wikipedia and makes us all look like junior-high goons.

Yeah, I know I've just violated the civility policy a bit. So sue me. The total inanity - or insanity - of deep, cutthroat discussions over theological points of view in the presence of glaring, unforgiveable lack of verification of the actual subject of the article just pulled my tripwire.

I do good work on this encyclopedia. Why don't you all go and do likewise, and let God worry about his ghost writers and publishing contracts? I'm sure he, or she, or they, already have better lawyers than you working on all that. And no, I'm not going to be pulled into any debates here; I've said my piece, now I'm going back to WP:DGAF.--Textorus 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism. I am sorry you do not feel the article has merit. Unfortunately, most of these items are unsourced because such research is time-consuming and difficult, and like everything else on Wikipedia, dictated by the amount of free time one has to contribute. There are only a few people who ever work on this article with any seriousness, rather than editing single figures or the like. Most people only change the religious items, sometimes continuously, necessitating the debate that so disgusts you. Discussion is the only way to resolve these matters.

I should indicate that your vitriolic message of criticism here is even less helpful than a discussion about attributed authorship... we are all well aware that a great deal of work needs to be done, but we simply don't have the time. There is a warning on the top of the article, and if you feel time is short (although I tend to believe this is an artificial "SOURCE OR DELETE NOW" emergency) you are welcome to pitch in. Your willingness to contribute nothing but spite is "freakin' sad."--Agbdavis 20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not an emergency at all. Deleting the "now."--Textorus 05:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the vituperative tone, I am sympathetic to the issue raised by Textorus. I have tried without success for several years to find authoritative--or even plausible--sales figures for many of these books. In many cases, the references in the article are not very helpful. An example of estimates that are roughly credible are those for the Harry Potter books, since the publisher has released figures for total sales of the series and there are only 7 books in the series. Dan Brown and his publisher have claimed figures of around 70 million for The Da Vinci Code. However in many if not most other cases, the figures seem to have been either invented or "estimated" in a way that suggests they could be off by factors of 2, or 5, or even more. The original "top 10 best seller" list publicized several years ago also seemed to lack any verifiable references. Perhaps it would be good to have a separate list which only contains books for which reliable sales estimates are available. It would, I suppose, be a very short list.Fragesteller 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a joke. Simenon is cited by this source as having sold 1.4 billion copies. This one claims that "for the last forty years of his life he had been — by general consent — the best-selling novelist in the world". Unreliable? Sure! Find a better one, for him and for the others too. L'omo del batocio (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect dates

Some of the dates in the lists of children's books here are incorrect. When I listened to Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing on tape, at the end, the text copyright date was mentioned as 1971. There was a movie of Island of the Blue Dolphins made in 1964. I don't know, but I think the date for Are You There, God? It's Me, Margaret might also be wrong. User:Gmeric13@aol.com

You appear to be right about Island of the Blue Dolphins, and I have changed it. I haven't checked the others yet. Thanks :) --Agbdavis 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The date of the Bible's first writing (3000 BC) appears utterly wrong. That would by long predate the invention of writing (particurarly as applied to Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.103.213.242 (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dating the Bible

The first entry upon the best-selling books list dates the earliest books of the Bible to 3000 BCE, yet even the most conservative scholars place the earliest books of the Bible at a much later date than that. So why include such a religious claim - and uncommented at that? We might just as well place the composition date of the Book of Mormon around 400 CE, as Joseph Smith claimed that the "golden plates" were engraved at that time - and LDS-member still believe this.

As Wikipedia seeks to meet scholarly standards, the reference to 3000 BCE should either be removed or more clearly commented upon.

-- User: jassu.ella@gmx.de

Also, would it not be more fitting to give the date when the bible was first published as one entity, rather than when parts of it were first published? -- Burkhard.Plache (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest changing name of article

This article might be more useful if it stated the most published books, rather than the most copies sold. Several titles on the list, especially religious ones, have been distributed free of charge, and these numbers have impacted the totals shown. The current scope of the article is both restrictive and inaccurate. Widening the focus to include things like the IKEA catalog (175 million copies in 2006 alone) would be more practical. If the majority wishes to keep this article as is, I'd like to start List of most published books. -- Needscurry (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought. The IKEA catalog is not a book.Brian0324 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is squarebound and hundreds of pages long. I wouldn't call it a magazine. -- Needscurry (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)