Talk:Juan Luis Guerra

Untitled
shouldnt it be "The cost of life"? it sounds better to me. (Monkey 32606 01:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

I'd translate "Estrellitas y duendes" as "Stars and elves"

A good translation for El Niagara en bicicleta would be: "Niagara on a bike" it is a Dominican expression ("to cross Niagara falls on a bike") used to denote an almost impossible feat to accomplish.

Billboard ranking
I added the fact tag to the billboard info because it only reached #77 according to | this page. Perhaps someone meant Billboard Latino listings (which I've researched but can't find). DBlomgren 19:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Billboard rankings have been fixed with citations added. Mononomic (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Juan Luis Guerra discography
 Support split - Discography section takes up more than one third of the page, and should be split to a new article entitled Juan Luis Guerra discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not 70 million records
We have a problem with one of the web sources which is usually considered reliable. Back in May 2019, an IP editor from Dominican Republic changed 30 million records to 70 million without a reference, which is clearly unsupported. At that time, the AllMusic biography about Guerra said nothing with respect to millions of units sold. But after the inflated sales figure appeared in vandalized Wikipedia, AllMusic changed their text to incorporate the new number. This is a mistake.

I cannot see how sales can jump from "20 million" reported by MSN in 2010 and "30 million" estimated by Billboard magazine in May 2019 to 70 million in the same month. It's impossible.

Therefore, I assert that the new AllMusic numbers are unsupported and wrong, based on vandalism and amplified by circular reporting, that is, by lazy web authors taking their numbers from Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. 70 million are circular reporting taken from Wikipedia (not precisely English Wikipedia). And 30 million seems inflated since there are other reports including 1 5 4 million, 20 or 25 million and aren't "old news". To be honest, i don't know his available sales/cert, but if we choose a figure or an average I tend to support 20 million. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be interested to see how many sources show lower numbers than 30 million, with a timeline for comparison. Thank you for agreeing about 70 million. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure, please see below some examples from bilingual sources (and disregard the 25 million —for one reason I mentioned that figure but is not his case) :


 * 20 million (20 millones):
 * 2008 (August) — La Tercera (sp)
 * 2008 (September) — El Mundo (sp)
 * 2008 (October) — El Nuevo Diario (sp)
 * 2009 — Última Hora (sp)
 * 2010 — Billboard (the same article but via Reuters)
 * 2010 — Business Wire
 * 2013 — The San Diego Union-Tribune (sp)
 * 2013 — Jerusalem Post
 * 2014 — Pollstar
 * 2015 — El Comercio (sp)
 * 2015 — La Prensa Gráfica (sp)
 * 2016 — El Planeta (sp)
 * 2017 — Radio Enciclopedia (sp)


 * 30 million (30 millones)
 * 2011 — El Nuevo Diario (sp)
 * 2012 — Latin American Herald Tribune
 * 2012 — Miami New Times
 * 2012 — NBC
 * 2013 — Curaçao Chronicle
 * 2013 — El Comercio (sp)
 * 2014 — El Universo (sp)
 * 2014 — Latina
 * 2016 (Arhive) — Clarín (sp)
 * [etc]


 * Others figures:
 * 2013 —14 million— Diario Libre
 * 2013 —14 million— La Información
 * 2013 —14 million— El País
 * 2014 —14 million— Sun-Sentinel
 * 2015 —14 million— PrensaLibre

Around 2003, his sales were put on 10 million according to publications such as Clarín (ref). In the following years, and closest to the next decade his sales were set in 15 million (examples: Diario de Mallorca (2007), Radio France Internationale (2007) or UNESCO (2008)). Although, there some exceptions with even older references such as 2000 (El País) and 2002 (El Universo) whom have had reported 15 million.

Yes, the 20 million figure was initially "reported" since 2008 (with first known/found references) and the other one (30 million) since 2011, which aren't a big difference because are only 3 years. I recognize, the 20 million figure only have references from 2008-2017 and the other one from 2011 to our present time. And what I mean with aren't "old news" it's even a 2015/2017 report (e.g) using the 20 million claims will be a difference of only 3-5 years compared to 2020 which looks fine when the artist only has 1-2 releases with not a major impact on record charts or updates in his certifications. I also mentioned the 15 million claims (which is actually 14) only for the context, because even a record label used that figure upon a time and they usually inflate figures.

However both figures (20 and 30 million) have a questionable trajectory, and probably are cyclic and primary information from our Wikipedia. Look at this example in es.wiki from January 6, 2008 when was added without any reference and eventually wasn't removed. Naturally, in the next months (August-September-October etc) "reliable sources" reported that figure as you can see above. In English Wikipedia, seems that figure was added for the first time on April 4, 2009 and it was later used in the next year by publications such as Billboard (see 2010 ref). Now, the 30 million claim has almost the same history. It was initially added in en.wiki on August 20, 2010 and never reverted and in es.wiki on May 4, 2011 as the earliest example. It was reverted the same day there but reinserted on June 6, 2011. In both cases, since then that figure has been used by all "reliable" sources.

Let's assume good faith, sometimes and rarely, music sales (or any kind of info) are changed by IPs and even newer user without using any reference when there is actually references outside, especially with articles with a minimun oversight. I agreed with the 20 million because with the most recent figures and within all lower and higher claims seems to be the "average"; although it's probably a primary information. My other suggestion is as I did without a "formal consensus" with this edition: keep both figures 20 and 30 million. That will depends also, what other think, and with this background if is even a "good" idea using one of them or both and if a user can add additional information such as his available sales/cert which could drastically change it. Ultimately, if he has closest sales/certs to 20 or 30, will not matters too much of a "primary issue". --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ¡Fantástico! That is some amazing research. I am beginning to think that we should tell the reader that there are several different sales figures reported by different sources with conflicting times, so that the reader can see there is some amount of uncertainty to the numbers. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a wise idea and cases like him fit with that proceed even if we don't know his certs/available sales. In that way we're not the judge of information. Are you able to add that note? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)