This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
I think instruments should be removed from the graphic timeline. That kind of thing is intended for bands who have replaced members through the years (e.g., Journey). The Monkees never replaced a member, and they have almost always had backing musicians, rendering the whole thing moot. Mike, Micky, Peter, and Davy sang and played what they did when they did based on their desires and abilities, not as members hired specifically for any particular instrument (other than vocals). As such, having the instruments listed in the timeline adds nothing but clutter; rather the timeline should simply show when each member was active with the group. Sm5574 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet, those sources are not reliable in this regard. Neither gives a source for their sales claim, and one even repeats the lie that the Monkees outsold the Beatles and Stones. That alone discredits it completely. And it does not matter how long the text has been there; wrong is wrong. Agreed, RIAA does not give worldwide numbers, so if we want it to read "in the US alone" then that's fine, but there is absolutely no reliable evidence (that I have seen) that they have sold anywhere near 50 million records worldwide. The RIAA supports less than 25 million units sold in the USA. How could the Monkees possibly have more than doubled that worldwide? Where could they possibly have sold that many records? The other countries they charted in, combined, didn't even match the US population at the time. It's impossible.
Especially considering how widespread Mike's lie has been, this claim needs a bulletproof source, and I have not seen one beyond the RIAA. There is no harm with going by the RIAA and noting that it is only US; there is harm in making statements beyond that with no definitive source on those numbers -- especially nice, round numbers like 50 million.
I have no problem giving a 21M total of US sales per RIAA, but it's a stretch to call Billboard an unreliable source for worldwide units. And the Hollywood Reporter supplied the same 50 million figure, making with The Telegraph three reliable sources for 50M worldwide. RIAA doesn't support a worldwide figure, which is what you wrote and why we are here discussing it. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet , I didn't write that it was "worldwide". That word was already there and I simply overlooked changing it. After you mentioned it, I would have fixed it, but you had already overwritten it.
And just because two sources make the same claim does not make both sources reliable or the claim true. Again, just from a logistical standpoint based on US sales, 50 million albums seems impossible. That's albums only, not singles, which in the US they only got certified for 15 million albums. It's an extraordinary claim, and so it requires better evidence than a passing note in an obituary. Andrew Sandoval is the best source of Monkees information we seem to have, so I would love to know where he got that number. Again, I'm not saying it's false, but it is incredible, and so in this case I do not find it reliable.
So how about this: we keep it the way I had it, but change "worldwide" to "in the US alone" (with the RIAA citation there), and add, "and reportedly 50 million albums worldwide" with only the Hollywood Reporter link. Sm5574 (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your argument which rests on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, telling us to look with suspicion at impossible published "facts". I have argued many times that context matters, especially when I can establish that Wikipedia itself has poisoned the media, creating a Woozle effect.
I found a 35 million figure from WaPo in 1986, which is pre-Wikipedia, but still may be suspected of distorting the facts per CONTEXTMATTERS. In fact, Nesmith lied in 1977 about the Monkees sales figures, telling an Australian reporter that the Monkees had sold 35 million in just one year—1967—a blatant falsehood.[1][2]
Regarding the Woozle effect, do we know when it was that the first "50 million" figure appeared in the media? And when it appeared in Wikipedia? I found that the Colchester, England, IP Special:Contributions/78.149.94.110 added the 50 million figure in November 2010, without a supporting citation.[3] (The same IP also added unsupported sales figures to ten other band articles.) In mid-2011, the user Howenstein115 removed 50M[4] then added a poorly referenced 65 million figure.[5] When Davey Jones died in 2012, 65M was showing here,[6] and I bet a bunch of reporters copied it without question. Others might have remembered the 50M number. So if we want to avoid the Woozle effect, we should be looking at sources published before Nov 2010. If we want to avoid Nesmith's lie from 1977, we should be sticking to sources from 1976 and earlier, or sources that don't pay attention to Nesmith's claim. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet, the problem with going back that far is that it doesn't prove the modern statements false. The Monkees have had multiple revivals, including a major one in the late 1980s, when all of their original albums charted again. They have also released multiple new albums since then that charted, as well. Thus, short of raw data, I don't know what could be considered completely reliable, and I don't know where to get current raw data other than RIAA certification.
In addition to my suggestion above about wording and citations, we can also attach a note to the text explaining the situation, something like, "Because the press has continued to repeat Mike's false statement about album sales as fact, it is difficult to find completely reliable current information regarding worldwide record sales." Sm5574 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
