Talk:In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album)

covers
slayer covered the song In a gadda da vida on less than zero soundtrack

Fair use rationale for Image:In a gadda da vida.JPG
Image:In a gadda da vida.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In a gadda da vida.JPG
Image:In a gadda da vida.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida Deluxe.jpg
Image:In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida Deluxe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.jpg
Image:In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825082620/http://alextsu.narod.ru/borderlinebooks/us6070s/index.html to http://alextsu.narod.ru/borderlinebooks/us6070s/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=The+Billboard+200&g=Year-end+Albums&year=1969

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User blanking reliably sourced information. Why?
Someone has taking to erasing the sentence that states that In A Gadda Da Vida has sold 30 million copies worldwide. There are 5 Reliable Sources listed, and it would be incredibly easy to find several more Reliable Sources saying the exact same thing.

Thus, blanking it makes no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.28 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

All that is needed is just one source -- the 'RIAA certification' (Recording Industry Association of America) which I assume can be found from legitimate research.Muso805 (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope. There are presently SEVEN Reliable Sources all stating the same VERIFIED FACT. Now, we both know that RIAA doesn't state "30 million copies worldwide" as a)the RIAA only deals with US sales, NOT International sales b)the RIAA only started certifying anything other than 'Gold' in 1976. I suggest you do RIAA searches for acts like Elvis Presley, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Notice how many of those Classic(ie. pre-1976) albums are ALL certified Gold, but NOT Platinum. Why do you think that is? But, even that doesn't actually matter, as there are already SEVEN Reliable Sources. Nothing more is required. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.28 (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Case reopened. It is impossible for sales in USA plus the total rest of the world to come anywhere near 30 million copies. 60,000 in the UK is a good barometer. The other major markets in the world at that time would also strongly indicate alignment with the total USA sale. Unless there is another country in the world we don't know about that sells millions of copies. User 88marcus is absolutely correct in his action.Muso805 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The album was certified again in 1993 with updated sales: 4 million copies, there's no indication it sold another million plus after 1993 and prior of that period too, it was out of the charts since then and even out of catalog charts. Those 30 million copies sold are purely promotional--88marcus (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

88marcus - I completely agreeMuso805 (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

So what? Seriously? What does that have to do with anything? There are MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES stating the "30 million worldwide" figure. That is all that matters.

The "RIAA" fiasco has been explained, possibly in one one of the links. But, anyway, multiple...reliable...sources.

And, if you honestly don't know anything about the ludicrous "4 million" figure, then you probably shouldn't be editing this page at all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.28 (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Some more links..





https://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/thebookofseth/iron-butterfly-in-a-gadda-da-vida-iron-butterfly-theme



Even you would have to admit there is something a bit fishy about an album selling more than eight million copies in one year, but only reaching FOUR million over fifty years later!

Why would this be?

http://www.theharbinger.org/xvi/970923/james.html

In a Gadda Da Vida' was released in June 1968, was cerified Gold within months...but was only certified Platinum AND Quadruple Platinum on the same day in 1993! So, what? Since Platinum was introduced in 1976, are we to assume that the album had failed to sell an additional half a million units in the 8 years since being certified Gold, and continued to languish with sales of under a million until a sudden and very concentrated rush of sales of over 3 million in late 1992? Considering that the album spent the entirety of 1969 in the Top 10, we would assume that it would be at least Platinum by the time the standard was created in 1976. The real reason for this absurdity is well-known... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.28 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * "The info is in the internet" doesn't mean it is true. None of this sites are reliable about record sales, they don't work with that. The Beatle's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was released before In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida and the claim is that it sold 32 million records worldwide but it has around 20 million copies certified, 16 millions more than Iron Butterfly album, the 32kk is very accurate in that case, but to claim that an album sold 7 times the certifications it has is completely nonsense.--88marcus (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

But those aren't fan pages, or anything like that. Those come from reliable news sources, or are published books from respected publishers. So, there are MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES all stating the exact same thing. The ONE problem you have is that the irrelevant RIAA didn't "certify" what everyone else knows to be fact, and multiple reliable sources state to be fact. But, so what?

And, what's more, you researching the RIAA page constitutes WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.28 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sure your addition will be removed by an administrator as User:88Marcus is not a vandal, and maybe you should apologise or retract. The sources you have added are merely cheap journalistic facts that have obviously been copied and re-circulated. There is nothing to back up your claim other than someone stating 'over or more than 30 million copies'. Your case would have legitimacy if it were backed up by something more tangible than the same repeated phrase. What published books are you referring to? These look like local newspaper reports repeated and copied from the Rolling Stone article. The multiple sources state a fact but you need to demonstrate where that fact came from and until you do I have reverted back to User: 88marcus. Please do not accuse me of vandalism either it is just that your case has no factual foundation - take a look at any best selling album of all-time lists and it is not there. Maybe you should open a dispute case so that your claims can be judged by arbitration but right now 88marcus has the correct stance and mine is humble support for his action.Muso805 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's see.. "I am sure your addition will be removed by an administrator as User:88Marcus is not a vandal" Blanking RELIABLY REFERENCED sentences is vandalism.

" and maybe you should apologise or retract." For what, exactly?

"The sources you have added are merely cheap journalistic facts that have obviously been copied and re-circulated." And you know that HOW? Do you even know what a WP:RS is? Go on, look it up.

" There is nothing to back up your claim other than someone stating 'over or more than 30 million copies'." It is NOT "my claim". It's MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES.

"Your case would have legitimacy if it were backed up by something more tangible than the same repeated phrase." Again, it's not 'my case'. It's multiple reliable sources. And how else could it be phrased? 'Over 30 million copies sold', "Exceeding 30 million". What exactly is your point here?

"What published books are you referring to?" The ones I linked to the online PDF versions of ON THIS VERY DISCUSSION.

"These look like local newspaper reports repeated and copied from the Rolling Stone article." According to you, and nobody else. Again, WP:OR, WP:POV.

"The multiple sources state a fact" Indeed they do. And that is ALL that is required. "but you need to demonstrate where that fact came from" Do I work for any of those RELIABLE SOURCES? Nope. So, what is your point?

"and until you do I have reverted back to User: 88marcus." You've repeatedly moved the goalposts here. If there were ever even any to begin with. Just now it was all about RIAA. Now, you have conceded defeat there, but have come up with some totally new argument.

"Please do not accuse me of vandalism either it" What you're doing to the article is vandalism.

"is just that your case has no factual foundation" You mean apart from the seven Reliable Sources that you keep blanking?

"- take a look at any best selling album of all-time lists and it is not there." ANY? or just the ones you choose to be 'valid'?

"Maybe you should open a dispute case so that your claims can be judged by arbitration" MY claims? It's NOT "my claims". It is what the multiple Reliable Sources say. I'm not claiming anything other than the facts stated by multiple Reliable Sources.

"but right now 88marcus has the correct stance" Not at all. 88marcus is blanking reliably sourced information. That's vandalism, plain and simple.

"and mine is humble support for his action." And why exactly are you supporting his action? What do you have against Reliable Sources? On what authority do YOU dismiss multiple Reliable Sources? And why should YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS trump what is says in multiple Reliable Sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.101.28 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources -- why are you on such a mission? The sources all seem to be regarding the death of Lee Dorman and look like re-hashed notices of the same article. I hope another administrator comes along and removes your nonsensical additions. I am tired of removing it myself as you will only put it back in. Once more - these are not reliable sources.Muso805 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RS. And what makes you think that MULTIPLE RS are "nonsense"?

user: Heiko Gerber -- thank you for removing this nonsense. I welcome others to continue to remove what is clearly a repeated notice regarding the death of Lee Dorman and merely recycling a misleading and incorrect fact. I have no doubt this user will once again put it back in, and I hope the WIKI community can continue to remove it Muso805 (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only "nonsense" in your mind.

Removing content
Recently a user blanked information from the infobox. I have tried reinserting it, but a persistent person seems to think that my reverting vandalism is "unconstructive". I wish people would look at an article's efit history, and read the article content before trying to jump in and accuse people of "unconstructive edits". 06:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, it appears that the user who was blanking the content, and then made threatening personal attacks, is a sockpuppet of a blocked account. 197.86.195.204 (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead info is absolutely ridiculous
Most of the sales info that's been in the lead for a few years now is at best dubious and at worst complete nonsense. The only facts that can be determined with certainty are that it peaked at No. 4, it was Billboard's No. 1 LP of 1969, and it was certified 4x platinum. Everything else doesn't belong in this article. Aside from the idea of the album selling 8 million copies in a year being absolutely insane by the standards of the late 60s, the later figure of 30 million in total and it outselling every other album in history is not well supported by its sources if you take time to read through them. Sales figures should probably require more authoritative citations than an unsourced article on a regional news site that essentially serves as a thinly veiled advertisement for the band's concerts. In some cases they state their info is taken directly from the band's website, which is iffy enough on its own but doubly so when you realize that one of the "facts" they quote is that the album spent 140 weeks on the Billboard chart, which is about 40 weeks longer than it actually spent. Not a huge exaggeration, but it's enough to make me doubt the trustworthiness of their other claims. To call it unencyclopedic is putting it mildly.

On top of that, one of those sources (https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2018/07/iron-butterfly-brings-metal-charts/) explicitly places its sales by the end of 1968 at 500,000, directly contradicting the 8 million figure. Either this far more plausible figure is wrong or the album somehow sold 7.5 million copies in the second half of that first year. This lead might as well have been written by the band's publicists themselves. 2600:8801:710E:7E00:4453:30B1:6825:81AB (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Not only is it not "absolutely ridiculous"(which is entirely YOUR WP:POV, but it's all WP:RS. I'm sorry that you have a problem with that, but that doesn't make it alright for you to blank WP:RS content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What's more, it doesn't matter what you doubt. What matters is if it's RELIABLY SOURCED. Which it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * And, OF COURSE, there was ONLY GOLD certification in 1969. If an album sold 500 000 or 50 000 000 it would still only be certified as 500 000 either way. Anyone who knew anything at all about Music Sales and Certifications would be well aware of that, and know that that isn't an issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not so reliable, in fact. See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_187 at which huge problems were raised with respect to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The sources giving ridiculously high figures are recent, poisoned by the equally inflated figures that were added to Wikipedia without references to support them. This is a case of the Woozle effect, with vandalism on Wikipedia quoted as facts by the media.
 * Here's a history of inflated sales claims in this Wikipedia article:
 * June 2008 – "31st best-selling album in the U.S., selling more than 25 million copies." Added by an IP from Washington, DC.
 * January 2009 – Inflated sales removed by Zazaban.
 * June 2009 – "25 million units worldwide." Added by an IP from Cambridge, Mass.
 * October 2009 – "sales of over 25 million copies", added by North Carolina IP.
 * From this point forward, some publishers took the Wikipedia number at face value, and relayed it to their readers. We should consistently use pre-Wiki sources for these facts, for instance The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll published in 1995, which says, "During the group's relatively brief lifetime, it sold about seven million albums". A 1989 book, Rock Movers & Shakers, published by respected imprint ABC-CLIO, names a date when the album "drops off US chart after 140 weeks, selling over 3 million copies and is Atlantic Record's biggest album success. (It will remain so until the advent of Led Zeppelin.)" In March 1971 when Iron Butterfly was reportedly splitting up, Billboard magazine said they had sold more than three million copies of the album. So we have unimpeachable sources that are not poisoned by later falsehoods telling us that the album sold more than $3M by March 1971. These sources cannot be brushed aside lightly. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That's cherry-picking. Sources from long before thst state "over 25 million copies", then later "30 million copies". Are you seriously suggesting that that figure originated on Wiki,? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This album was only "certified 500 00 sales", because THAT WAS THE ONLY CERTIFICATION THERE WAS AT THE TIME. Platinum certification didn't exist until 1976. And, and read this VERY carefully, not all albums released before 1976 were retroactively certified. Read that. Reread it. Note how many records by, as just one example, Elvis Presley were "only" gold. Why? Because they came out long before "Platinum certification" ever existed. So, In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida sold over 8 million in its first year, but it was "only" certified for 500 000, because that's the only certification there was at the time. Did it sell 500 000 copies? Then it's Gold. Period. As another example, Buddy Holly had the first record to sell ten million copies, but IT is still "only" certified Gold. 197.87.63.175 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * And, how could it have been Atlantic Records' biggest-selling album for a number of years, if it only reached 4 million in 1993? Something like Led Zeppelin IV would of prevented that "biggest-selling Atlantic Record for a number of years". Common sense, try and use it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No "Woozle"
In 1997, the Virgin Encyclopedia of Sixties Music was published. (ISBN 075350149) On page 247, under "Iron Butterfly" we clearly read"

By 1993 their legendary second album had sold an astonishing 25 million copies...

That's clesrly long before the so-called "Woozle effect", which the other fellow stated began in 2008. Check and indeed mate. 197.87.63.175 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The Virgin Encyclopedia is a fine source. But WP:CONTEXTMATTERS still applies, as with every source, all the time. If the number 25 million is impossible, which it is, then we must assume Virgin fabricated the number, or more likely accepted an inflated number from the band's representatives.
 * There is no conceivable way that an album selling three or four million during the first couple of years the buyers were most interested in it, would end up selling 21 or 22 million more copies during the decades of decreased interest. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * And that's WP:OR on your part. There are far more RS stating the 25-30 million. Plus, if there are RS stating it had sold EIGHT million within its first year, how did it drop back down to "3-4 million"? Perhaps the article should state the "30 million", but include something stating "Howrver others sources say..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I know this is no way a WP:RS, and it's someone speculating on a forum, but it is very interesting. (Of course, this would have an impact on multiple albums/articles, were it remotely true )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.175 (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

More..
from 1988, stating "over 20 million"...

The Encyclopedia of Rock by Phil Hardy and Dave Laing(1987) on Page 226 says To this day it remains Atlantic Records largest grossing Rock album.197.87.143.217 (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting
,. 197.87.143.37 (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you still at it? You've been hounding this issue for 3$1/2$ years, after failing to prove your point at WP:DRN. The problem continues to be that modern sources have been affected by unsupported numbers shown at various times on Wikipedia. A photo showing two million dollars worth of sales does not mean the same thing as two million units sold. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hounding? And what is "unsupported"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.10.5 (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 197 seems to believe he owns this article, it's very tiring... Swinub (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's about WP:RS. Some people don't like what the WP:RS say, so they erase entire paragraphs, links, sources and all. Which is quite simply vandalism. One person has used multiple accounts to try and do this. That is what is very tiring. Why don't the same people go after the Sound of Music Soundtrack or Jesus Christ Superstar(1970) for the same reason? There is clearly some malicious intent when it comes to this specific article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.243 (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources can be extremly conflicting. For an example there was a Billboard report around 1972 that said the Beatles sold something like 520 million records worldwide. Then CBS reported in 2013 that they have sold 1.5 Billion (billion!) singles in the USA in 1960s alone. What, oops we have forgot to mention that part? There you have a major difference and how far out those difference can get even with mostly reliable sources. Dhoffryn (talk) 07:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * But it is not the place of Wiki editors to cherry-pick which sources are "more valid" than others. We can say that a report in the Los Angeles Times is more valid than someone ranting and raving on Reddit. However, if there are multiple WP:RS all stating the same thing, then Wiki says it. I will say straight out that I do not believe that Thriller has sold 70 million copies worldwide, nor that Back In Black has sold 50 million copies worldwide. But that is what the WP:RS say, and so Wikipedia goes with that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.63.243 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying for Colin
When the WP:RS say that In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida was "the biggest-selling album" it clearly means up to that point in time. In subsequent years, of course, albums like the Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack, Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, and various others would surpass In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida's sales. But, for a period of time, the statement was true.

And "certifications" mean very little. The Sound of Music Soundtrack can WP:RS be stated to have sold over 20 million copies worldwide. Yet, is only "certified"... RIAA Gold. So, that "20 million" must be wrong according to the sockpuppeteer.

If WP:RS state a number, why does this person ferl that they "know better"? 197.87.135.139 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)