Talk:How to Win Friends and Influence People

Changing it back from 15M to 30M ...
This 2011 NYT article suggests it sold 30M, the wikipedia article cites 15M:

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


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

And Time in 2011:

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


 * "By Andrea Sachs Tuesday, Aug. 09, 2011


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

Or The New Yorker:

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


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

OK, I updated it.

But the first line under reception says:


 * How to Win Friends and Influence People became one of the most successful books in American history. It went through 17 print editions in its first year of publishing and sold 250,000 copies in the first three months.  The book has sold over 30 million copies worldwide since and annually sells in excess of 100,000 copies.  A recent Library of Congress survey ranked Carnegie's volume as the seventh most influential book in American history.

I can't find a source to the 100,000 a year. The original reference was to a financial post article:


 * The Financial Post Archived 2008-10-09 at the Wayback Machine on Dale Carnegie: "Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, the gold standard of the genre, has sold more than 15 million copies since it was first published in 1937." (5 April 2008)

but I can't find anything that supports this 100,000 / year number. It sounds plausible though.

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

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

Lauchlanmack (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


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


 * It's probably actually around 400,000 per year, but I updated the article to say 250,000 a year instead of 100,000 a year.


 * Total sales is likely actually around 32M to 35M in 2020


 * Based on those annual sales, and that it had sold 30M in 2011, my personal estimate is that by 2020 the book has sold somewhere between 32M and 35M copies. Lauchlanmack (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional information: Steven Watts' biography of Carnegie says that for the book -


 * "By November 1939 it reached the one million sales mark. Over the next decade, the book would sell around five million copies"

So we have:


 * one million sales in a decade, or around 200,000 copies sold per year, in its first decade
 * it sold an average 250,000 per year between 1982 and 1986
 * 30 million copies were sold in 75 years by 2011, an average of around 400,000 a year

It feels like the sales volume is increasing over time - it would have had to to reach the 30 million copies sold level.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Tidy up this talk page
This is ordered reverse chronologically, which means irrelevant stuff that's more than a decade old and has been resolved anyway is at the top.

I think that's a bad way to organise the content.

I suggest


 * 1) either delete or action everything that's a decade or more old and
 * 2) order the page reverse-chronologically instead of chronologically so the newer and more relevant points are at the top

Even better would be to organisae the talk page by topic.

I tried to make a couple of sensible changes but someone reversed it on me, so I'll leave it to someone else to try.

Update: I think all sections of this page should be deleted, except for the last three (about sales volumes of the book and this one about tidying this page).

If no one else has either actioned this already or made a comment why they want to keep a section, I'll delete the sections I think should be deleted (as marked above in comments) when I next visit the page.

Lauchlanmack (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, all Wikipedia talk page sections are ordered in ascending chronological order and comments aren't deleted, per the talk page guidelines. At your insistance, I've set up automated archiving on this page ... I've removed your useless comments that hinder that process. Graham 87 14:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not "insist" on automated archiving. I suggested we clean up the page so it's relevant. Please don't misrepresent me.


 * I disagree with your assessment of the talk page rules. It says:


 * "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject."


 * Some of the content I suggested deleting was not that. For example the question "Was this book banned in the USSR?" which you elected to keep is just a random question. It's not relevant to the article IMO.


 * The guidelines say: "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."


 * I was referring to comments posted, in many cases, more than a decade ago and that were either never relevant or no longer relevant. The posters of those comments were not going to turn up a decade later and give their permission, and equally nor would they care if their old comments were deleted. I don't see the guideline as impeding deletions of irrelevant content.


 * The guidelines also say: "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person."


 * I personally experienced your communication style, such as "I've removed your useless comments," as bordering on that. It certainly does not fill me with greater enthusiasm to further contribute to Wikipedia, although I certainly do not take your conduct as representative of everyone else.


 * And it sort of negated your central point of: don't delete other people's content - since you just did it.


 * But I'll put that aside since the outcome has been a better and more relevant talk page, which is what I was suggesting. I'm glad we got to that. Lauchlanmack (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point about misrepresenting you; I'm sorry about that. The question "Was this book banned in the USSR?" is entirely relevant to the article, because if somebody found a reliably sourced answer, it would be fair game to add it to the article as well. Re: deletion of talk page comments: the talk page guildelines also say this: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". Also re editing your own comments, see this section of the talk page guidelines; I have reverted your recent editing and refactoring as it breaks those guidelines. If you wish to say something about how you've updated the article, start a new comment and don't edit ones that are several days old. Honestly, your talk page tweaking is extremely tiresome ... I shouldn't have to find a diff containing over ten edits in my watchlist every time you post to this talk page. Just stick to adding comments, not trying to tweak them. Graham 87 14:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that if the book were banned in the USSR it would be a relevant point to add to the article, but I can see that point of view. I was really referring to a wider class of irrelevant comments I've seen, like "I'm working on a class assignment, does anybody know X?"
 * Re diffs, since we've been conversing as far as I can recall all my edits have been to my own comments / content. I feel absolutely entitled to edit my own content. I'm not going to start a new comment to say a slightly tweaked version of what I already said. I feel that would be silly, but I guess you're going to disagree on that. I update my comments / content as either I find new information to add or I correct minor mistakes or formatting issues, and that results in a "tweak." So I just flat out disagree with you on that one. I think it's absolutely a good activity, it adds to better content / conversation on a talk page. Lauchlanmack (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you find new information, just start a new comment. That's standard practice ... and so is not modifying your comments days after the fact. Attribution of comments (i.e. who made them and when) is vitally important on Wikipedia. Graham 87 04:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: starting a new comment ... I've done that for you, kinda like this. Graham 87 15:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting assertions about the relationship of the book to the self-help genre ...
In the "Origins" section the article says:


 * "Before How to Win Friends and Influence People was released, the genre of self-help books had an ample heritage. Authors such as Orison Swett Marden, and Samuel Smiles had enormous success with their self-help books in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

The Reception section (Critical Assessment) says:


 * "Despite many of the negative comments from his critics, Carnegie's book established a new genre. Carnegie described his book as an "action-book" but the category he created has since become known as the self-help genre. Almost every self-help book since has borrowed some type of style or form from Carnegie's "path-breaking best seller.""

I don't think both things are true, or if they are they need to be put in balance with each other.

What are your thoughts about how to resolve this?

Lauchlanmack (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing references in "In Popular Culture" section
Those 3 references (coming from the French version of this page) seem to be missing in the English version :

Dans le film Le Complexe du Castor, l'acteur principal est au bord du suicide, et il traduit sa conscience par le biais d'un ventriloque qui lui énumère tous les livres qu'il a lus pour avancer dans la vie, dont celui-ci.

Dans le film La neuvième porte, de Roman Polanski, c'est également ce livre que lit l'étrange "fille aux yeux verts" qui protège le héros du film. Celui-ci, qui la croit étudiante, s'en étonne, et demande: "c'est à votre programme?"

Dans le cartoon Une journée au zoo on peut voir une mouffette lire ce livre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE98:1830:B48F:F1A9:4E24:CB02 (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Languages WFIP book translated into
What languages has the "Win Friends" book been translated into? MountVic127 (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC) By which it is meant: MountVic127 (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the book
 * the Wikipedia article with name of language of article in English
 * the Wikipedia article in a language with name of the language written in that language (French in Français) MountVic127 (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This sort of information isn't encyclopedic unless it's been mentioned in independent reliable sources like Harry Potter in translation. Graham 87 15:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)