Talk:List of best-selling books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MORE WORK NEEDED

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

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

  • 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 )

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

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. Thank you :) --Agbdavis 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Quran

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

___


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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_best-selling_books_b7e8.html"