Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

WSJ as a resource and wikipedia contradicting itself

have seen that the WSJ article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html has been used to disprove that Jackson sold 750 million records. Which actually is an accurate article if you take certifications from around the world in to account. So if the WSJ article is considered more reliable than record label claims, Presley's and the Beatles' and pretty much everyone else's figures should be lowered accordingly. If you give a look to the article (link given above), it claims that Jackson is only second to the Beatles. So my suggestion is for wikipedia to not contradict itself and either put Jackson back to the 500 mil-1 bil catagory as claimed by the record labels, or lower Presley and Beatles' figures accordingly with respect to the same WSJ article. Regards. Mecuy (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can change the 1 billion sales for Elvis and The Beatles to 750 million?Christo jones (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We should change The Beatles 1 billion to 328 million /that CAN be backed up by their certificates/ and Elvis should be lowered from 1 billion to about 300 million /since his sales can only be backed up til 230 million /if you add the numbers posted by Harout72 you get this much/ and based on the WSJ article The Beatles sold more than Elvis than he should be under it/. On the other hand if we give not track-able 70 million to Elvis then we should also give some for The Beatles so maybe 390-400 million for The Beatles and 300-320 million for Elvis should be acceptable. And keep MJ at 350 million /since as we saw in the WSJ article that can be backed up/ --Taru29 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

May I please remind you - this is a list which is determind by a case-by-case basis. Just because one thing is lowered, does not mean another has to get changed. They have nothing to do with each other - it's what's verifiable and plausible, for each different case. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you that IF we have reason to believe that some numbers are too high they get lowered /that would be your case-by-case basis right?/? Read a bit in the higher section of this page. We have reason to believe that nor The Beatles nor Elvis sold 1billion+ /heck we can't prove not even HALF of that/ so logically they should be lowered. I personally find the ABBA rather high with 370 million /why? 'cause with 370 million sales they would have oversold not only MJ but Elvis and if we are to go with certificates than The Beatles and we all know they did not. BUT if it can be proven with certificates then they should stay at 370 million, but prove it please/.

Previously it was proven how we cannot prove the 1 billion+ sales /not even 500 million sales/ for either of them, so does that mean that number should be lowered? YES. Why you ask? Because if it does not get lowered than the whole list is crap, we lowered for some because "it cannot be proven and that number is laughable" and keep others numbers high because "well CNN said it too and The Rolling Stones".

Think about it, it makes NO sense to only play around with those peoples numbers who are NOT The Beatles and NOT Elvis, they should be represented with numbers that can be proven too. --Taru29 (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're getting the gist, thank you. All I ask is that the "Well if MJ's sales are decreased, these ones should be too, because MJ's have been!" arguments stop. It's not a valid argument and i'm sick of reading it. Why did you create another account? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I only ask for fair play, and accuracy /which this list is lacking/. What another account are you talking about? Or did you even write that to me, because this is my only account I didn't have 1 before, I just got registered this August. --Taru29 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sold about 375 million records worldwide

Some interesting figures about Michael Jackson's worldwide sales:

Albums

  • Studio Albums: 10
  1. Got To Be There (1971)- 4,112,879
  2. Ben (1972)- 4,401,605
  3. Music and Me (1973)- 1,980,440
  4. Forever, Michael (1975)- 1,687,234
  5. Off The Wall (1979)- 20,000,000
  6. Thriller (1982)- 108,000,000
  7. Bad (1987)- 32,000,000
  8. Dangerous (1991)- 30,000,000
  9. HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book l (1995)- 22,000,000 (44 million units)
  10. Invincible (2001)- 12,000,000
  • Total studio albums worldwide sold = 236,182,158
  • Compilations: 22
  1. The Best of Michael Jackson (1975)- 2,500,223
  2. One Day In Your Life (1981)- 1,600,208
  3. Farewell My Summer (1984)-2,087,110
  4. Looking Back to Yesterday (1986)- 302,330
  5. 18 Greatest Hits (?)- 1,250,000
  6. Anthology (?)- 2,655,098
  7. Other Pre- 1991 Motown Compilations (?)- 500,000
  8. Their Very Best- Back To Back (?)- 250,000
  9. Love Songs (?)- 500,000
  10. The Original Soul Of (?)- 377,745
  11. The Michael Jackson Mix (?)- 500,000
  12. The Best of- The Motown Years (?)- 300,000
  13. The Best of- The Millennium Collection (?)- 200,000
  14. Love Songs (?)- 50,000
  15. Other Post- 1990 Motown Compilations (?)- 500,000
  16. Special CD Box (?)- 4,000
  17. Greatest Hits HIStory Volume 1 (2001)- 3,000,000
  18. Number Ones (2003)- 7,000,000
  19. Michael Jackson: The Ultimate Collection (2004)- 500,000
  20. The Essential Michael Jackson (2005)- 2,500,000
  21. Visionary: The Video Singles (2006)- 500,000
  22. King of Pop (2008)- 400,000

Compilations Sold= 27,476,714

  • Other Albums: 4
  1. E.T. The Extra- Terrestrial & Singles Packs (1982)- 100,000
  2. Dangerous- The Remix Collection (?)- 22,000
  3. Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix (1997)-8,000,000
  4. Thriller: 25 (2008)- 3,000,000
  • Other Albums Sold= 11,122,000

Home Video/DVD: 10

  1. Making Michael Jackson's Thriller (VHS- 1983)- 2,000,000
  2. The Legend Continues...(VHS- 1988)- 1,000,000
  3. Moonwalker (VHS- 1988)- 2,000,000
  4. Dangerous- The Short Films [VHS (1993), DVD (2001)]- 575,000
  5. Video Greatest Hits- HIStory [VHS (1995), DVD (2001)]- 1,250,000
  6. HIStory On Film- Volume ll (DVD- 1997)- 800,000
  7. Ghosts (1997)- 250,000
  8. Number Ones (DVD- 2003)- 1,600,000
  9. The Ones (DVD- 2004)- 125,000
  10. Live In Bucharest: The Dangerous Tour (DVD- 2005)- 500,000

Home Video/DVD Sold= 10,100,000

Singles

  1. Got To Be There (1971)- 2,245,900
  2. Rockin' Robin (1972)- 2,897,300
  3. I Wanna Be Where You Are (1972)- 1,321,600
  4. Ain't No Sunshine (1972)- 278,900
  5. Ben (1972)- 2,865,000
  6. Morning Glow (?)- 15,300
  7. With A Child's Heart (1973)- 341,100
  8. Music And Me (1973)- 12,300
  9. Doggin' Around (?)- 5,000
  10. We're Almost There (1975)- 403,300
  11. Just A Little Bit of You (1975)- 861,100
  12. One Day In Your Life (1981)- 1,756,200
  13. Happy (?)- 145,900
  14. Farewell My Summer Love (1984)- 788,100
  15. Girl You're So Together (1984)- 89,100
  16. Touch The One You Love (?)- 1,000
  17. Twenty- Five Miles (?)-10,200
  18. Ease On Down The Road (1978)- 100,000
  19. A Brand New Day (?)- 50,000
  20. You Can't Win (1979)- 50,000
  21. Don't Stop Till' You Get Enough (1979)- 2,500,000
  22. Rock With You (1979)- 2,350,000
  23. Off The Wall (1980)- 950,000
  24. She's Out Of My Life (1980)- 1,000,000
  25. Girlfriend (1980)- 30,000
  26. The Girl Is Mine (1982)- 2,150,000
  27. Billie Jean (1983)- 6,209,700
  28. Beat It (1983)- 4,432,000
  29. Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'(1983)- 1,800,000
  30. Human Nature (1983)- 1,050,000
  31. P.Y.T.(Pretty Young Thing)(1983)- 1,050,000
  32. Say Say Say (1983)- 2,850,000
  33. Thriller (1984)- 4,427,000
  34. We Are The World (1985)- 20,000,000
  35. I Just Can't Stop Loving You (1987)- 2,250,000
  36. Bad (1987)- 1,628,000
  37. The Way You Make Me Feel (1987)- 1,390,000
  38. Man In The Mirror (1988)- 900,000
  39. Get It (1988)- 180,000
  40. Dirty Diana (1988)- 1,200,000
  41. Another Part Of Me (1988)- 830,000
  42. Smooth Criminal (1988)- 1,350,000
  43. Leave Me Alone (1989)- 485,000
  44. Liberian Girl (1989)- 165,000
  45. Black Or White (1991)- 2,442,400
  46. Remember The Time (1992)- 1,300,000
  47. In The Closet (1992)- 620,000
  48. Jam (1992)- 510,000
  49. Who Is It (1992)- 540,000
  50. Heal The World (1992)- 1,629,000
  51. Give Into Me (1993)- 300,000
  52. Will You Be There (1993)- 1,050,000
  53. Goon Too Soon (1993)- 60,000
  54. Scream/ Childhood (1995)- 2,993,000
  55. You Are Not Alone (1995)- 3,086,700
  56. Earth Song (1995)- 3,173,000
  57. They Don't Care About Us (1996)- 1,764,500
  58. Why (1996)- 475,000
  59. Stranger In Moscow (1996)- 540,000
  60. Blood On The Dance Floor (1997)- 960,000
  61. HIStory/ Ghosts (1997)- 375,000
  62. You Rock My World (2001)- 1,915,000
  63. Cry (2001)- 45,000
  64. One More Chance (2003)- 225,000
  65. Visionary- The Video Singles (2006)- 350,000
  66. The Girl Is Mine 2008 (2008)- 50,000
  67. Wanna Be Startin' Somtin' Somethin' 2008 (2008)- 50,000
  68. Beat It 2008 (2008)- 50,000
  • Total singles sold worldwide = 98,967,600

Total Albums + Singles= 373,748,472 Floydian Tree (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice list, what's the source? I'm so glad that someone finally included his first 4 albums in the list too ^^. So we can assume MJ sold about 375 million records. --Taru29 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

where did you get the numbers?--Nathanid (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

These are lots of numbers to toss about without providing reliable sources.--Harout72 (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep kinda lot, though only 25 million more than estimated by Vieira in the WSJ article /that way it's not that lot/ still I'd love to know the source myself.--Taru29 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've calculated a bit and concluded that actually this is the same results as the Vieira calculations /350 million meaning it can be backed up by certification/ and the difference /the 25 million/ comes from MJ's first 4 albums and the singles that came out at the time /apparently most of the databases started at '78 or so my quick search pointed showed that so we cannot find those in the database (feel like the Elvis sales right?)/. Apparently the other reason for them to not show up in databases that as internationally only selling 1-4 million they didn't qualify for a certification in most countries.

To Floydian Tree: The compilation album called : 18 Greatest Hits was released in 1983 /I've checked my copy/.

Guillame Vieria that is also known as MJDangerous (MJ Fan) on the UK MIX forums? His calculations many a time have been disputed, and his information comes from a number of credible and also questionable sources, and sometimes misleading or contradictory sources. These numbers haven't even been verified entirely. I would not be surprised if he is correct, but he has compiled these figures from billboard magazines and news articles as I recall, given that a lot of data in some countries is withheld due to confidentiality agreements, it's not really possible to use these figures without citing an incredibly large amount of secondary sources, I have asked him for the sources once before, and he has not yet gotten back to me with them. JFonseka (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I'd like to make a note here /I just realized this because of that disc/, we were talking about poorly recorded album sales in certain countries /like Europe and how millions of albums are missing from certain peoples sales numbers/. Well apparently the disc I just talked about is from the time we couldn't import anything in from the US /as I previously stated/ which is also the poorly recorded time frame. Seems like it's not poorly recorded, the disk I have is recorded in the UK sales! This disc was released in the UK and the guy smuggled it in then RESOLD it. This puts the record numbers in a lot different light /also I'd like to make note that to the best of my knowledge in my country we track album sales from the early '70 but I doubt I could find sale numbers for foreign artist from that time for the reason I explained before/. Funny eh? --Taru29 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Certified Sales and Estimated sales

I'm not sure if this was touched upon but.. in a possible chance for settling the debate about record sales for Jackson/Elvis/Beatles, I would suggest adding another column on the side of estimated sales named "Certified Sales." for EXAMPLE!!:

500 Million to 1 Billion

Artist Country Genre Estimated Sales Certified Sales
The Beatles Pop Rock 1 billion 400 Million
Elvis Presley Rock and Roll 1 billion 300 million
Michael Jackson Pop / R&B / Rock 750 million 373 million

Remember its just an EXAMPLE. A chart like this will POSSIBLE be unbias towards estimated sales and more actual towards certified sales. It will allow editors to focus more on certified sales which we MOSTLY know from databases leading to more accurate sales for "THE BIG THREE." I say mostly because Elvis MAY suffer a little more then the other two due to missing sales but I think it may not be as significant as some may want to believe. Not a shot at Elvis, I Love The King, but a lot, NOT ALL, elvis sales are accounted for but sorry if I'm wrong. ITalkTheTruth (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The one big problem with this is of course that we don't have certifications for pretty much 85% of the countries in the world. Whilst the majority is topped up by what Harout has listed, Michael Jackson falls into the category where listing only his US sales is misleading as he has sold consistently well in the rest of the world. And in the case of Elvis and The Beatles it's even more difficult as we don't really know how much they sold in the other countries, though we know it's a substantial amount, so therefore going by certifications of only a few countries is misleading, as it differs for not only these 3 artists but for all artists. How are we to find certifications for the lesser known artists in the database when it's difficult as it is finding data for these 3 alone? Not a good idea. JFonseka (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I really do not know what's your problem with this. The list would be ranked by the estimates since those are pretty lot everywhere, reliable and non reliable sources will report it too. As for the certificated sales, they'll get a "*" and we'll explain how difficult it is to find them in the databases and they only represent data that can be collected from mayor countries from the time frame of 75-09. On the other hand we already talked about it how small countries really make no difference in the amount /like how many CD might have either of the 3 mentioned sold in Hungary? 1 million maybe? There's only 10 million people there including newborns too/. Even if we are to assume that 1-1 million of sales are missing in small countries like Hungary it's not like you can prove the 1 billion number or the 750 million. The two data will always be far from each other. The databases are obviously missing data /the US one and the UK one too/ some big countries only gives gold and platinum certificates while some small will give silver too /that makes it more accurate/ and very gives even bras.
I personally believe this would be a good idea, the certified data can change every time we find more certificates /fans might do searches for their artists in their own countries databases/, while the estimates will change every time a reliable sources states a higher one.

--Taru29 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me some of you are failing to acknowledge that the table suggests to include an Original Research (WP:OR). Besides, the main point of analyzing figures through the databases is to figure out whether the provided sales-figures in reliable sources are close to artists' actual total sales. While I admit that we're missing good 35-45% (not 85%) certificates for The Beatles and Presley, it's incorrect to say we are missing that many certifications for Jackson (as he hasn't launched his career as early as the two big ones), because we have most of the certifications for Jackson coming from the most important markets. As I mentioned above, we don't have to have databases for all countries as many countries in Asia Pacific, South/Central America as well as Eastern Europe have very tiny music markets (see this table by IFPI). Note that there are even countries in those mentioned territories which are not listed in the IFPI's table, meaning they don't even have music markets officially. So, adding tenuous numbers on the top of the numbers coming from major economically well developed territories (which we have covered in all three researches above) are not going to make a huge difference as the combination of all those small markets (which are listed in IFPI's table) for Asia Pacific, South America and Eastern Europe will just be equal to the size of two or three major developed European countries combined (UK, Germany, France). As for using a table like the one above, it would require us, besides having certificates from those markets which offer searchable databases, to include also certifications from Italy, Spain, Denmark etc. etc. and they don't offer searchable databases. Even if we had them all, the total sum of all for Jackson would not even suggest 300 million. So, 350 million for Jackson is very logical. That said, let's stop trying to find ways to have the 750 million for Jackson back on the list again, because it's really awful to see people wanting to believe everything they read.--Harout72 (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Complicated as it is, I think some variation on this is the only permanent solution to this dilemma. Whatever number is chosen, there's going to be a group of people that revert it. No matter how silly the 750M and 1B claims are, just taking them out will result in edit-warring. Listing the total supported by certifications as one column, and one to three estimates from normally reliable sources allows us to build a table that isn't based on OR. It also serves the important function of highlighting for the reader how inflated some of those "reliable" figures are.—Kww(talk) 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to turn the current 350m for Jackson to 750m only because we want to avoid edit-warring, especially, when we acknowledge that the 750m for Jackson or 1 billion for Presley and The Beatles are inflated and illogical. Besides what good could having one or more certificate-figures possibly serve. Jackson is claimed to have sold 750million worldwide but please look to the right at his US, UK, German certificates the combination of which is just 110 million. I mean what could we expect the readers to figure out, unless we have a link directing to a conducted research at the talk-page which in its turn will meticulously explain the sizes of music markets, or what percentage the US, UK, German markets represent. That's a long and impractical system I'd say, impossible to be done for every artist. Instead, I suggest we update all figures for The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson (already updated),ABBA, maybe even Queen and Nana Mouskouri. They don't have to be updated all at once. That way we'll have a credible list and we'll have more chance of having people reading the list and believing it. Look how many of us just here at this page realize how ludicrous those inflated figures are. Yet we wanna keep them regardless of the fact that reliable sources could be found for normal/non-inflated figures?.--Harout72 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say to do that. However, you show a table entry like
Artist Genre Certified Sales Estimated Sales
Michael Jackson Pop / R&B / Rock 310 million 350M[1][2][3]
750M[4][5]
That expresses it well. An estimate of "truth" can be generated for any of these artists from the certifications, and a variety of sources can be quoted. This just isn't a question that has an answer with a single numeric figure.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

First, let me ask you this, are you suggesting a link for the certifications? And if yes, do we re-direct it to the talk-page where say we have a certification-based-analysis done? Also, we'd still need to place Jackson in a bracket according to his sales-figures based on what the reliable sources claim. And I see you are suggesting to keep both figures (350m and 750m); in other words, if we're going to have multiple sources claiming two very different figures (350m and 750m), do we keep him in "500m - 1 billion" or "300m - 499m"? Because the certifications (that we have for him) could back up a figure of some 120-150m only. --Harout72 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 the point in this table would be that we have the reported data and the estimated certified data /which is all of the certificates for the artist that can be found between 75-09. Anyone who has brain knows that The Beatles started before 75 and Elvis was in his prime before 75, heck the guy died in 77!/. But as I mention previously since their data cannot be determined well let's add some to it to see how much they sold and we'll have an almost correct data /and we still gonna be far from 1 billion/. Yet since these big numbers are being reported we need to keep those too. Apparently wiki pages are already considered incorrect in most cases, so we should try to be as correct as possible and avoid bias.

Otherwise how did the 350 million turn into 310 million in the example above? I thought the Vieira guy estimated based on certificates /and we got quite close to 350 million too/ so from where did that 310 million come from /it's just a question 'cause I've never read that anywhere before/? --Taru29 (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Taru29, if we only had people with brains here who wouldn't need an explanation of any kind as to when The Beatles began or when the certification-based-markets were launched etc. etc., then we probably wouldn't have been having this discussion for two weeks. And why do you keep mentioning Vieira as if, he anywhere within his explanation here states where he's getting his numbers from. I spotted at least five mistakes within his numbers by reading it for one minute. That guy that you seem to be quite fond of, is not even familiar with certification-volumes. I have commented at the bottom of that page pointing out his mistakes. In Sweden, for example the certification-volume has never been 100,000 units for a platinum album, it's been 60,000 (at its peak) before music piracy began. Something as simple as certification-volumes are, especially, for a person who spends hours, days, weeks analyzing record-sales, he should know the fundamentals of music-markets better than that. --Harout72 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No real basis for 310 ... I was providing an example of the format, not literal figures.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think people think with their heads (if they didn't they would accept the list the way it was and move on, not in 1 billion years can you explain The Beatles sales number nor Elvis's, also people made notes for other artists too, they think therefore they make notes and argue, apparently at the moment with you too).

I mean it's not like a 5 years old will surf the net for this particular data. Also 99% of the world will just go along with anything that is said in TV making our little list useless and worthless /how many people will actually see it and believe it, knowing the whole WORLD knows wiki can be edited by anybody thus anything could be false here, as some pages do state nonsenses/

About why I stick to this Vieira guy: I thought his calculations prompted the change from 750 million to 350 million, seems like I'm wrong. So what prompted it? Everytime someone changes the 350 million I cannot say "But CNN said" because what number didn't they say yet? Common they anything but reliable lately /they have TMZ as their source for most of their articles lately, do you know how reliable those are?/, I thought WSJ was reliable /who quoted Vieira making this guy reliable/?

Do you have a more reliable person with a calculation I can quote? If so please link in his calculation.

BTW: I've checked the posts and I do not see your post. His miscalculation wouldn't make more difference than the new, recent sales since his death.

Also whom do YOU wanna quote for the number currently listed /we have a whole list for the 750 million which nobody can prove with certificates, but I can only think of WSJ and Vieira for the 350 million since all the rest reported the bigger number too/? There just have to be a source that did not state 750 million AND the 350 million all together.

Also, he IS stating where he got his numbers from. Apparently I cannot get the link in here, it got blocked. I'll try to post it again tomorrow. It's a nice long list, with certified and none certified numbers. Also they list shipped and soundscan data. Also while I looked into the thread they often back up the data /like on page 87 someone said the "King of Pop" album went gold in Russia and had the chart for it from a Russian site/. It might worth a look, I'll try posting it again tomorrow. --Taru29 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

People question Harout's figures, but then want to accept Guillame's figures without any question? Well at least we're making progress and can agree that neither The Beatles or Elvis have made 1 billion sales, and MJ hasn't made 750 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFonseka (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No Taru29, Vieira was not even in the picture when I had already done my research and realized how inflated the 750m is for Jackson and I changed it as soon as I found figures claimed by reliable sources which actually corresponded with my estimates. I would not provide Vieira's research as a reliable source. My comment; by the way, shows when I go to that site but it says at the top Your comment is awaiting moderation. And just because wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it's not a reason enough to stand back and say who cares if we have inflated figures. As for the link for certificates within the suggested table, I have asked above a question to Kww (who suggests that a table of this kind might be the only solution to end the dispute) as to whether he suggests a link for certificates at all. I still haven't gotten the answer to that nor have I gotten the answers to my other questions. I guess, the table looks easy to suggest but difficult to accomplish.--Harout72 (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually if Harout72's question got hunged up at that site then there could be others who questioned the guy's sales only they are not visible at the moment /apparently as long as it is being moderated I'm not sure anyone can see it except the original poster/.
Also For quite a long time I was saying the 350 million can stay /after all that can be backed up/ and only was ::trying to shed light to it that other numbers are way too much inflated too.
Also, can we consider the ukmix forum's calculations as reliable? They have quite a lot of chart analyzises /not ::only for MJ, but I've found an Elvis and a Beatles one/, sadly the links get blocked /cannot figure out why/.
They are getting close to 600 million for the Beatles, I couldn't see a final total for Elvis /they got into a ::dispute and forgot to update the numbers/ they got til 234 million for US+BPI+ARIA/AARM, so that's incomplete, ::and have the MJ sales broken down to countries /I saw Singapore sales???/.

--Taru29 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ukmix.org had so many people treating them as a reliable source (they aren't, it's a forum), that they were put on our SPAM blacklist to put a stop to it. Nothing wrong with reproducing their logic, though: if they explain their number well enough, you should be able to provide links to the original sources, too.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be slow, Harout. Yes, references for the figures, supporting the number. There's a reason the <ref> supports free-form text: we can put as complicated an explanation for the number's derivation as necessary. I know these kinds of things are hard to do: with WP:GOODCHARTS, it took me a long time for me to come out with the initial version, and people still bitch about it sometimes, even though no one has managed to suggest a better alternative.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at this model together

First, this is what I am suggesting, we should take The Beatles, Presley, and Jackson out of brackets which state at the top 500 million to 1 billion records or 300 million to 499 million records. We should place each one of these artists in separate tables, and the tables will not state any sales figures at the top (as before) for the artists. Instead it will state the artists' names.

The Beatles

Artist Country Period active Genre Total Certified Sales
From Available Markets		 Claimed Sales(2)
The Beatles United Kingdom 1960-1970 Pop Rock US sales: 211million [6]
UK sales 50 million[7]
German sales: 7.2 million [8]
French sales: sales 3 million[9]
Canadian sales: 12.5 million [10]
Swiss sales: 350,000 [11]
Brazilian sales: 500,000 [12]
Argentinean sales: 1 million [13]
Austrian sales: 300,000 [14]
Swedish sales: 300,000 [15]
Total available certified sales: 286 million(1)		 1 billion[16]
600 million[17]
  • (1)For a detailed certification analysis refer to the talk-page [18] (we'll re-direct it to the analysis that I've conducted)
  • (2)We'll state here that we are to post only two sources for each claimed figure. Otherwise editors will post as many refs next to their favorite figure as they can find to prove that one of the figures is the most claimed one.

Note that it's important to have a link at the bottom of the page within a footnote for the detailed certification analysis at the talk-page. I will make a new analysis for all three The Beatles, Presley, Jackson. We'll ask editors not to place any comments in there (in the section of the analysis) as the purpose of those is for readers to judge for themselves if artists actual sales could stretch as far as 1 billion for The Beatles and Presley (as claimed by some sources), or 750m for Jackson (as claimed some sources). Also note that I am suggesting to have both claimed figures for Jackson and The Beatles within tables under "Claimed Sales", not only the higher claimed figure.

Remember, I'm suggesting separate tables for each one of these artists.--Harout72 (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. This way we'll have a clearer picture. --Taru29 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72, this is good but I hope that this time you will leave out completely misleading comment regarding supposedly MJ's advantege over The Beatles or Elvis because his career has begun later so he has advantage when conducting an analysis of this kind based on databases because that is only true on some markets but not in US or Canada or UK etc. In many countries you can get certification for any album/single regardless release date and as I stated before if you analyse The Beatles, Elvis and MJ's career in for example US using all sale sources like Billboard articles, chart trajectories, year-end charts, Nielson Soundscan numbers (from 1991-), certification dates etc. you will clearly see that MJ is way more undercertified then The Beatles or Elvis. Also you don't get certification automatically so if your record company doesn't apply (and pay) for it you don't get any so if you calculate all this together: being newer artist at the end of day doesn't automatically mean that you have advantage over older artist(s). Also in your new detailed certification analysis for MJ, Elvis, The Beatles leave out that 10% add comment because that is only your personal estimation and it's wrong. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to have the analysis in talk space, either. You can place an arbitrarily long piece of text in a footnote, and that's the best place for the details.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Must admit a long chart analysis would take up alot of space and the most important one can be listed as in the example, I believe it too that explanations should be there with the article not in the talk page. The US,UK and CA systems are really good, all three of them are well documented in it, the rest of the markets are rather poor /though the one for Finland goes back quite long, yet only has few data, and the Japanese is rather bad too, even with not too old data, they have poor listings for 2001 too!/ but I suppose the certificated numbers will be certificate based /meaning all those certificates that we can find, not more not less, so nothing will be added so nothing will be added/, maybe a foot note that "there could be albums sold that did not reach the certification limit might exist for all three artist" might be needed to be more accurate.


On the other hand I'm not against the chart analysis, it would be nice and neat looking to have one, maybe not in the talk page but say a page for each of these artist where we would list the certificates found /actually the talk page is good too I'm just pondering options/, and that page would only be updated IF new certificates are issued /meaning we can already find it in the database, a report wouldn't be enough/, but it might be too much work to do this, but it would make it more accurate.--Taru29 (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, if we're going to have the explanation within the footnote, I must say, this is not going to be a two or three-line footnote. When it comes to a table that greatly relies on certification-based-sales-figures, one must meticulously explain, at least, what year the certification-based-market in Canada (for example) was launched; in other words, it needs to be brought to the readers' attention as to when they, in that particular market began issuing certifications. So the footnote will have the following within:

(1)Certification-based-market in Canada was launched in 1975; therefore, most/all records released and sold prior to '75 will not show within their certification-searchable-database.

And we'll have the same footnote for every single market, whose certification-sales is going to be included within the table. I would; however, prefer having the certification analysis either in the talk-page or as mentioned above on a different page, entitled, say, The Analysis of Michael Jackson's certifications. And if we're going to develop the latter, it wouldn't contain comparisons. In other words, we won't be stating anything Note the year The Beatles began their career and see the same for Jackson, that was only done in my analysis to help some notice what's going on. And Z.K. HAL, I have stated this in our dispute (which I believe you haven't read), but ordering certifications is not expensive. In US it costs a member company only $350 for each certification. However, it will cost the record companies a lot more if they don't obtain the certifications because they often use the number of Gold/Platinum awards as a marketing tool. But please, let's leave this out and not turn this into another long and unproductive discussion. --Harout72 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe both would be needed /the footnotes and the chart analysis/, also I'm leaning to the separate pages option more as listing them together might end up in an argument and unintended race of the artists /I'd rather avoid another mess like this talk page is at the moment/.

Also I agree with Harout72 that this should not end up in an argument, we do not know why either of the artist have badly recorded sales (certification systems start time is one of them, then the certification limits too, I believe there are other databases that might have all of the sales - old and new with or without certifications recorded - but we have no access to them sadly, if those ever get public we will for sure update the data), also we should not start an argument about why (if at all) a label decides not get certifications for their artist /apparently they might have a reason to it, or a lazy employee/, it does make things harder for us.

Z.K. HAL: I need to say I have no idea what makes you think that they did not get the certifications? I'm sure about that they didn't ask for certification because some of the sales are still under the certification limits /kinda unlucky but might change in the future/. I advise you to write a letter to Sony and ask why they didn't get certifications when MJ sold enough to get one /you could hint in an impolite way that if they are lacking the money they should calculate the final price needed for all of them and the fan clubs will try to collect it :P/? That would clear us up if they actually slacking off and not getting certification or the sales are in a form that they cannot ask for one / like 5 million albums sold but for more albums and neither have more than 500.000 only less/? Also you could ask then if they did a recalculation of his sales data when giving out statement or only guessed since it seems too high and we cannot back up more than about 300 million /I think someone already wrote them because of this, I wonder if an answer arrived/? --Taru29 (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 I read everything you wrote here :) but again you are missing my point. It doesn't matter how much cost to get certification, the point is that you don't get certification automatically! Why some record companies don't bother with updating certification number is other subject (not important here) but there is no doubt (!) that there are countless examples of undercertified artists (complete Motown) and also I have stated before only few examples of MJ's non-certified singles, albums and can irrefutably prove everything using only Billboard magazines from 1971-2009. Your theory that "it will cost the record companies a lot more if they don't obtain the certifications because they often use the number of Gold/Platinum awards as a marketing too" is logical (in perfect world) but in real world means nothing. As a marketing tool record companies can use and are using sale figures without independent certification so at the end those certified figures aren't so important as you think. Certification can also be used as a tool in record company vs. artist dispute for non-paid royalties so... Anyway, I have a bad feeling from your comment(s) that this will be another dispute because you are using your personal opinion about certain things as a facts and that is wrong. Non-certified "missing sales" include:
a) albums/singles sold that did not reach the certification limit - for example in US, for Gold (500,000) certified album/single all copies sold over 500,000 but under 1,000,000. This missing sales figure is obviously big for any artist with big catalog.
b) albums/singles sold that did not got deserved certification - for example 1CD album (normal price) sold 3.2m copies according to Nielsen Soundscan has only 1×platinum (1,000,000) RIAA certification. This "missing sale" is because of record company certification inactivity (whatever reason!) and for many artists (new or old it doesn't matter) this figure can be and actually is very high and that is something that you completely ignore! Being old(er) artist of course play big part in this missing sale because certain markets started later with cetification but that is not exclusively only reason for not being properly certified. So if you are starting with all this "needs to be brought to the readers' attention" comment you also must mention this. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In support of ZKH's position, I've noticed that record companies get sloppy when it comes to multiple-platinum certificatons. There just isn't much marketing value to 10xPlatinum vs. 9xPlatinum.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Look Z.K. HAL, all records eventually get certified, maybe not right away but they do in the end. Saying they don't get certified and I can back-up my argument with this proof or that proof is not helping us here. The fact and the matter is that we are seeing only the certified ones, we are working on a consensus, do you see any other way?.I agree; however, that there are records that fail to get certified only because they may be some 100,000 units away from reaching the US Platinum award (for example); therefore, I multiply the total sum in my calculations with 10% to include them all. However, we should leave the certification-volumes out as it will get very complicated with most countries, because certification-volumes in 95% of the markets have constantly been declining after 2000 due to music piracy. It would take a whole lot of space to explain as every period, after 2000, experienced a different volume, which eventually may result in making no sense to most readers as most people need simple 1 + 1 type of an explanation. So we should have a single footnote stating in bold:

  • (1)Note that some records may have failed to get certified due to not yet reaching either the Gold or the Platinum award level (we will update them as soon as they do). Also, note that 95% of the music markets have experienced a decline in their Certification-volumes due to music piracy which began in 1999-2000

And then we'll have a footnote briefly stating the launch periods in every market.

  • (2)Certification-based-market in Canada was launched in 1975; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '75 may not show within their certification-searchable-database.
  • (3)Certification-based-market in Germany was launched in 1975; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '75 may not show within their certification-searchable-database.

etc. etc. --Harout72 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again! :D How can you claim that all records eventually get certified?! You are some kind of prophet or what? Fact is there are many records that didn't got deserved certification yet (for more than 10, 20, 30, 40 years) and maybe never will. Q.E.D. What will happen in the future you don't know, you can only guess. If you wanna do this in proper, objective way you will mention that in a single footnote. Something like...

  • (1)Note that some records may have reached either the Gold or the (multi)Platinum award level but still didn't got (new) certification because Record Companies didn't apply for awards.

If we/you put that single note we have a consensus if you ask me!
Not very important right now but regarding your previous 10% add, you did have a good intention but as I said before that add was (and still is) completely wrong because you are multiplying all sales with randomly chosen number. You don't know how many records aren't covered with RIAA certifications due not reaching the certification limit. Maybe for Elvis that number is 20% or even more, for The Beatles 13%, for MJ 19%, the point is you don't know. You can't guess (!), everything must be based on facts. ...also not very important... music piracy isn't only/main reason of big decline in music markets if we are talking about physical albums/singles sale. There are many reasons and piracy is certainly one of them, others are new listening devices (with digital singles/albums not CDs) and of course today we have a crap music hehe. Anyway if you check digital singles sale in US you will clearly see very healthy figures there. Some new artists in very short period sold more than 15m digital singles according to Nielsen SoundScan. Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense here:
  • (1)Note that some records may have reached either the Gold or the (multi)Platinum award level but still didn't got (new) certification because Record Companies didn't apply for awards.

I will never allow on this page for million years as it's the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. If you think you are actually going to find ways to surreptitiously make readers believe that the 750m for Jackson is logical because according to you whole chunk of his records haven't been certified, you are very mistaken. I don't know how many records have been sold and not certified but you do? I have spent hours and days providing facts. What facts are you providing? And yes music piracy is the only reason for the decline of certification-volumes. Instead of spending as much time as you do reading about Jackson's non-existent 750m, spend some time reading music industry related articles. No consensus as far as I see. --Harout72 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

??? What are you talking about?! What 750m figure?! I accapted that we have 350m and 750m in claimed sales so WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?! You have a serious, serious problem man! I don't care what people believe and you are obviously on crusade to create your own truth without mentioning important fact... and fact is there are (many) records which didn't got deserved certification and you can't dispute that!!!! Check Nielsen Soundscan figures and/or start reading Billboard magazines. Also in my note there isn't single word about MJ or about how many records didn't got certification I only pointed out that some records may have reached either the Gold or the (multi)Platinum award level but still didn't got (new) certification... and that is irrefutable fact and for you that is a nonsense?! OMG LOL So no consensus! ...about piracy being only reason I can only say - believe in whatever you want! I saw, heard, lived exact same thing in '80s with VCR piracy in movie industry. Regarding your personal attacks and insinuations... with that you are only showing your true charachter, problem with ego and lack of arguments. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey kids end of argument, that sounds silly. We're not adding a footnote to hint that labels do not get certification eventhough they could /with this energy quite a lot of things could be added that are true and would only mislead people/!! We could add a footnote that might be sales that did not get certified since they never reached the minimum level and those are therefore not represented but we cannot hint that labels do not get certifications /at outmost I'm sure they get them together to get it cheaper but they probably do get it, not for 1 million but maybe for 3-5 to cut back the fee/.

Also Z.K. HAL, if you are so sure they didn't get certifications I'm sure you don't know why not /I'm afraid they cheated MJ and stole his share from those sales since those are not trackable, let's hope I'm wrong/ but the best thing you can do at the moment is not arguing here but making a note to John Branca about this who will investigate this problem /if they did lie to MJ about his sales and took his share millions could be missing millions that the estate deserves, so please try to contact him, after that if they did cheat certificates might suddenly appear, or a statement concerning this situation/. And stop arguing!! We're not getting anywhere like this.--Taru29 (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct, Taru29. The record companies may not always apply to get the certification every time a fast-selling record reaches a platinum status, but rather they choose to pay once and get it only when it reaches to a point that they know the sales of that record will not go any further. One simple example of that is Christina Aguilera's album Mi Reflejo . If you look closely here, you will notice that the album has reached 2 x platinum and then it suddenly turns into 6 x platinum. And I've seen this before with many other artists. So, all records reaching a platinum or double platinum status (for example) eventually get certified and in the end are visible in certification-databases.--Harout72 (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Taru29, are you suggesting that all records out there from all artists including MJ are properly certified?! Only for example, for start go check MJ's digital sale in US but before his death... So do you know when and how many his digital singles sold in more then 500,000 and 1,000,000 copies before his death and only 3 certified gold in 2005?! I know! Also FYI only in first 5 1/2 weeks afer 25/06/2009 MJ sold another 7,578,000 digital tracks but still no certification. (read this) Then also only for example check MJ's physical singles certification from album Bad. If you didn't know 7 singles, 6 Top 10 including 5 #1's and only 1 certification (1,000,000) for first single way before other singles releases and that wasn't his biggest single in US from that album regarding sale. Go check Billboard's articles, year-end charts and chart trajectories from 1987 and 1988 for all his Bad's singles. Did you ever heard of Motown-RIAA dispute or Interscope? Motowns' Diana Ross, The Supremes, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, Jackson 5, Michael Jackson, Commodores, Miracles etc? Check (again) Billboard's articles, chart trajectories, year-end charts from '60s, '70s and '80s! and then look for example Stevie Wonder's RIAA certifications. here LOL You are suggesting that his records are properly certified. Yeah I know, I can contact Wonder's lawyer to tell him that his client's records are not properly certified and he will "investigate that problem". LOL Take again only for example one of the greatest & IMO best albums ever Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of The Moon". Last RIAA certification is 15.00x MULTI PLATINUM (Certification Date 06/04/1998). here LOL Do you know DSOTM Soundscan figures from 1991-1998 and then from 1998-2009? Do you know anything about history of Billboard 200 album chart and Pop Catalog chart and about DSOTM unprecedent chart's history from 1973-2009? Did you ever heard of Eagles' "Their Greatest Hits"? Read this (Eagles' part)... Enjoy!
Harout72, every person interested in certifications knows about term "under-certification" (under-certified artists, albums, singles etc.) but of course you don't wanna mention that in this article. You are deliberately twisting the truth. I only made a suggestion for note and you can make another one but without note about "under-certification" this article will be one big JOKE. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Z.K. HAL, you should read the articles you're providing yourself more closely. It nowhere within this article mentions that the 7,578,000 million digital tracks belong to certain singles. This could be a total sales figure of 20 different singles combined. In the same vein, that the same article nowhere mentions the titles of the albums that the 3,787,000 belong to. Again, this could be a total sales figure of 5 or maybe even 7 different albums combined. And what makes you think, that all singles entering the top-10 are necessarily supposed to get certified? In order for top-10 singles/albums to get certified, they need to spend at least several consecutive weeks within the top-20. There is no set rule that once a single/album enters the top-10, it must be certified. And what do you want to prove by pointing out this source here about the Eagles? It clearly states the Eagles' Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 has been certified 29 x platinum and RIAA's database here contains the 29 x platinum for that album. And as I explained to you, record companies do not apply for a certification every time a record reaches a platinum status, especially, when it's a fast selling album, and that's exactly what we see in that article. All, however, get certified in the end and become visible within databases. And please stop waisting time trying to prove that Jackson has at least 500 million units of certified sales missing; in other words, stop trying to prove that if he had this record certified or that record certified, then the sum of his certifications would undoubtedly be 750m. I'm tired of reading your pointless arguments. --Harout72 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Z.K. HAL I was trying to point out the only plausible reasons why they might not ask for certifications. If they are cutting back on fees, then do not worry, they'll certified and then we'll add the numbers too. The other option would be cheating to get money, and IF you have reason to believe that's the case then please contact Branca, he's gathering money for the estate to pay back the debt he left, if they cheating with his sales /that way that he doesn't get money/ then he'll be interested. In other case please don't panic, newer certifications will be added later on, and don't scare anyone /I for example right away thought that your trying to say that the label is cheating with his sales thus stealing money from him, now it sounds more like your bored and want to quarrel with someone/.
Billboard is apparently not accurate and not reliable /it's kind like Oricon in Japan, accurate? yes, if it has data then it's highly accurate, but it IS missing sales data about numerous albums thus you can not rely on that/.
The footnote your suggesting makes no real sense and rather obviously aims at only 1 artist. Even though it could be included, but then we have to include footnotes for the other artist too /like an explanation how Elvis died 2 years after the starting time of most of the international certification systems so most of his sales - mainly those that occurred in his life - is not recorded by any database that we can get access to/. Eventually we would have pages of footnotes.
About his recent sales: Guess what I'm a fan too and I know he sold that lot /further more I've heard 9 million already that article is way inaccurate, and should be updated/ but no source states he sold this much from only 1 album /so my footnote suggestion is a good one, since he might have sold 9 million but apparently without reaching the certification minimum for any of his albums/. Have a look at my research into Oricon /the part about MJ, the recent sales part/ it clearly shows how he sold from multiple albums at the same time /not 1!/. His Thriller sales /1.1million/ you see they could get 1x platinum OR wait till it's gonna be 2x platinum and get one certification for it for $350 instead of $700 /and when that happens we add the number to our calculation/.
And the RIAA chart you linked in: did you even look at it? You can clearly see how they collect up certificates /at least the first 5 was added on the same day!/. Yes they are collecting up /which is a nice trick used by all major label as I'm seeing this/. So please no more argument, no more fight.

--Taru29 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ROTFL ... Harout72, FYI 7.6m digital tracks belong to many singles (more than 50) and I have exact new Soundscan numbers for all his digital singles! Here you can see his OLD digital singles sales only week after his death (2 over 1m + 6 more over 500k then, and now FYI 11 over 500k, including 4, soon 5 over 1m + Thriller is close to 2m). Regarding his albums you obviously don't track Billboard charts because otherwise you would know something about his recent sale and official Soundscan numbers for his Number Ones album (this week it will become best selling album of 2009), Essential, Thriller, Bad, Off the Wall, even 4CD+DVD MJ's Ultimate Collection etc. All mentioned albums could be certified. Check Soundscan numbers and RIAA certifications, hehe. Obviously you will be very surprised if MJ in next few months get only few of deserved certifications because according to you he doesn't have any under-certified albums/singles! About Bad singles... another LOL Hey man, did you saw chart trajectories for all Bad singles? :P I have them all (including seperate airplay and sale). Do you know what Billboard wrote about those singles in 1987 and 1988 regarding sale? You obviously don't, you probably never saw Billboard magazine. I can provide exact page numbers from Billboard regarding that, but why? You will again wrote some stupid claim that I am trying to prove that MJ sold XY records! What a bunch of [BEEP]. That stupid, pointless phrase is obviously your intellectual maximum! ...and again you completely missed the point about Eagles! Did you saw history of certification for that album? Big jump in short period of time, album got certification only few times and between that, album was what???? Under-certified (!) but of course you and Taru29 don't understand that! Imagine our converstion in period between Eagles' certifications! But of course according to you there is no under-certified albums! In last few post where did I mentioned any figure regarding MJ total sale?! I only wrote about under-certified records, artists and I mentioned few examples including complete Motown's legends but you missed that again! You also missed under-certified DSOTM... but you are right in one thing... I am wasting my time with this pointless "discussion". Now, you can continue your web crusade against virtual "enemies" and MJ.
Taru29, don't you understand there are countless artists, records without deserved certifications! Irrefutable fact! There are many people, record companies who don't give a s..t about RIAA or any other certification awards. For example complete Motown, Interscope etc... BTW you can buy old RIAA awards even on ebay. Do you think that genius like Bob Dylan or Stevie Wonder gives a s..t about RIAA awards! Get real! For artists certification award isn't ultimate goal, holy grail, it is only music trivia and in best case scenario you can use it as a marketing tool but in a real life for record companies it is much better to use 1 billion or 750m figure. Nobody normal cares anyway. If you buy album because someone sold X records or got Y platinum RIAA awards then you have a big problem. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You see you're saying certifications do not count. Okay then please make a list ONLY from reported data BUT add that little side information in the title. I know there are under certified albums /what the hell, did you even read my comment? I said they are collecting up, jeez/. You are only here to argue, this is pointless. Does RIAA count to an artist? Yes, maybe it's not a goal but it counts, that means he has fan and sales. Also it IS a nice marketing tool, as well as the only way to get into The Guinness Books of World records that so many artist /including MJ/ wants. So stop arguing, enough is enough. I personally WON'T answer you from this point on since you have NO ideas, NO contribution to solve the problem, you only start an ARGUMENT all over again. I advise others to do the same, but if they can bare you any longer they should continue this argument with you I won't.--Taru29 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Period

Is it just me or could this seem a tad confusing to a random onlooker? Is it referring to the period the band was active? Or is it referring to the period the records were sold? Now obviously, the former is correct - but it is unclear considering we are referring to the sales of a band in this list, not the band's history itself. I propose we change the title to "Period active", thoughts? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure we can change it into "Period Active", I posted it as "Period" because it's the way we've always had it. But I guess, if we ever land on a consensus on the table, then perhaps it may mislead somewhat since we are going to have a bit different type of a table.--Harout72 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

UK's database is back online

Unfortunately, BPI's database too like many others doesn't stretch as far back as the database of the RIAA's. They have established their certification-based-market in 1973.

For some inexplicable reason Presley does not seem to have any of his materials posted. I'm counting only 7.6 million for The Beatles (which doesn't seem reasonable whatsoever). And it looks like they've captured all Jackson's releases (they may soon update his latest sales), I am counting 19.5 million (singles, albums combined) for Jackson.

Note that on albums, the certification volume in UK before 2004 (that's when their market was hit strong by music piracy) was 400,000 for platinum awards, 200,000 for gold awards and 100,000 for silver awards.--Harout72 (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds odd. Could they be still updating? I find the Beatles certifications very low for England too, so I guess they'll update later on.--Taru29 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking too, I don't think they're entirely done with their system update. We should wait a bit to see if anything changes.--Harout72 (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I searched "Elvis Presley" and nothing came up, I typed "Presley Elvis" and then results came about, talk about a horrible search database...anyways, there are 23 results, The Beatles don't seem to bring up much results, so I guess the database is still being updated, they should all turn up eventually, the question is when? I'm not a big fan of how that database works, but essentially you have to click more info and the certification history turns up. I guess the accounting can start now =) JFonseka (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Good job :), I tried it Presley, Elvis, I guess no comma is needed. OK, let me count what we have for Presley, will post it here soon.--Harout72 (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
His total (singles, albums combined) is 4.9 million. That's not a lot, I was expecting to see at least some 10 million for Presley. I wonder, if the figure will change later on, it might, if they're still updating.--Harout72 (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Harout, the list hasn't entirely been updated, it's missing some key albums, and I don't think some of the certifications are up to date. Elvis' biggest seller was released in 2002 (30 #1 Hits) and its last certification was in 2002, so I think it's missing some huge sales, so it still awaits updating, also some of his newer albums aren't on the list, but are definitely in Gold or Platinum status by now. UK Chart Run, the database isn't complete as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFonseka (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, you're absolutely right, the more I dig in the more I get convinced that their system has yet to be entirely updated. The Beatles' albums 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 for example, both have gone at least 3 or 4 x platinum in major markets including Germany and Canada, not to mention that both albums have been more than 15 x platinum in US. But in UK, it shows that the album1962-1966 has been certified only 1 x platinum, and the album 1966-1977 has been certified gold. This cannot be right, they are definitely not finished with updating their database.--Harout72 (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 750 Million + Records Sold

People lets stop being racist, common, Elvis and Beatles are good, but when you put ABBA over Michael Jackson then you have some serious holes in your information.

Sources: http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-sold-more-th/

Please other people just go on google and you will find this.

This has to be changed no way ABBA sold more then Michael Jackson, there has to be some serious mistakes in the sources you guys are pulling out.--RafiCHAMP1 03:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Racist? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It will be restored once the full protection has expired, as there is consensus for the figure. However, a footnote will be added as well, to note the allegations of inflation for the figure. Pyrrhus16 09:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.n24.de%2Fnews%2Fnewsitem_3734500.html&sl=de&tl=en&history_state0=

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/music/2009/05/21/1242498844872.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/US/Mystery-surrounds-Michael-Jacksons-sudden-death/articleshow/4706328.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/US/World-mourns-Michael-Jackson-tributes-pour-in/articleshow/4707272.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 11:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

if wikipedia can change MJ’s figures down to 350 million, why don’t they cut Elvis’ and the Beatles’ down? Before his death, on wikipedia, it said he had sold 750 million with idk maybe around 6 sources, now it is cut down to 350 million with only two sources. On the other hand, the beatles and elvis have always been listed as 1 billion+ with only 3 sources and that’s not right. There are more sources saying 750million for MJ than those saying 350Million, even when his publicist was suing him, she still said he had sold over 1billion+ around the world. And we all know Thriller has sold over 50 million copies, so people need to stop saying it hasn’t. I believe it has sold over 100million.

wikipedia is wrong they said that michael jackson sells are in 350 million lower then abba

Michael sold 750 million albums and more, whether or not he sold more or less than Elvis, Michael was a humanitarian also. He wrote his songs as an inspiration to all mankind. Elvis was just a musician that is it. Michael jackson might of had problems with the media and all but he still gave back to the community, even when some of the community didn’t have his back. He gave to the underprivileged and that’s what makes him Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the previous posts too. There are talks about changing the table and the data listed for the artist /mainly The Beatles, Elvis and MJ/, since we cannot make a decision about which number is correct and most likely will list both reported numbers and provable /certification based/ numbers as well for all 3 of them /with time probably to other artist too/. --Taru29 (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you taru29 for your points about elvis, jackson and the beatles but why was jacksons sales changed first out of the three

To the unsigned comment: Probably Jackson's was changed first since his sales are easier to track than Elvis' or The Beatles' /certification system starts, hard to track sales from life etc/.--Taru29 (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect everyone on this talk page for the good work they are doing we are finally getting somewhere

also on elvis wikipedia page it says he has sold 1 billion will it be changed or is it correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 23:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

you can use reliable sources such as mtv , sony records , michael jackson website

for the beatles rolling stone, emi

if you want to use the 1 billion plus sales elvis, you use the 750 mill for Michael jackson

its that simple

wikipedia is not about what you say is exceptable or not

it is about reporting reliable sources in a consistent manner

and many more sources are quoting the 750 million figure. whether you think they are copying eachother is unimportant

you have used seemingly overinflated stats, with much less references for many if not all of the other artists, so it is not up to your personal opinion where you think you should be putting people

you are completely defeating the purpose

and all of this has been caused by you Harout72 by only change michael jackson sales but leaving elvis presleys sales alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 01:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just rememeber this pointless arguement which has been going on for months has been caused by harot72

--- Question to any person that can edit this list: Can we add a 1 billion number to MJ /next to the 750 million, 300 million and 350 million/? I have a source to it /it's in Hungarian though/. It says he sold over 750 million in his life and it's estimated that his sales is about 1 billion now /1 billion in Hungarian, in the article with letter no numbers = "egymilliárd"/. Link

Please note this is just a question I don't know if there would be another source to this, but it is one of the local TV stations official news show that announced it /it's considered reliable here/. Thanks for the answer in advance, and for the new layout it's a lot more accurate and easy to understand. :) --Taru29 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe, 750m is inflated enough for someone whose actual sales doesn't even seem to come close to 350m. I would like to stay with what we have for now. Besides, the reliability of the source provided above doesn't seem to be at the level of CNN or The Daily Telegraph which currently happen to be the supporting sources. In other words, both of these are highly reliable and they would immediately disagree with the mentioned figure above. --Harout72 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's why I asked /I thought it will be a no, still it's interesting that it popped up, I wonder if it will pop up elsewhere too/, though it is local news but I must admit they didn't name their sources /it was really surprising to hear the number live on TV/. BTW: Do you think The Daily Telegraph or CNN watches this list /I got that impression from your comment/?--Taru29 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The list? You mean List of best-selling music artists? Well, no you misunderstood :). I meant to say, reliability wise, the figures presented by The Daily Telegraph and CNN would disagree with 1 billion. You don't really believe that Jackson's actual figure could be over 350m do you? Because I was under the impression all throughout the dispute that you were leaning towards believing that 350m is plausible enough for Jackson. The reason why I decided to present the tables the way I did (with actual sales coming from databases), so people would compare the total from available databases to the 750m and gradually begin to understand that perhaps the 750 is really inflated. In other words, I didn't come up with these tables, so we could start posting every figure we come across online. I was hoping we all understood what I was trying to accomplish.--Harout72 (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 I dont get what you are saying beacuase the daily telegraph and cnn have also said he sold 750 million million worldwide and this was before his death —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Highlights of Michael Jackson's career [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards to a number somewhere between 350-400 million but I do have difficulties with those bigger numbers /I whish I knew how they brought it out and when if at all will they make an official statement about it, it would clear everything up to know what the official numbers are/.--Taru29 (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Post your votes for the Final Model below

As I suggested before in this section above, I'd like to place the top selling artists (whose actual sales do not correspond with the claimed figures) in separate tables. I am posting the table in this section again, this time, with all the footnotes that each table will have. Remember, the tables will not state any sales figures at the top, instead they will only have the name of the artist the table's been constructed for.

Please, post your votes below the model with simply Agree or Do not agree. If, you do not agree with the model and you'd like to comment, make sure your comment is very brief and to the point please. In other words, we will not have this section for long discussions. If most votes posted below read agree for the suggested table, then we will naturally have a consensus and make the changes.

The Beatles

Artist Country Period active Genre Total Certified Sales
From Available Markets		 Claimed Sales(12)
The Beatles United Kingdom 1960-1970 Pop Rock US sales: 211million [19]
UK sales 7.6 million[20](1)
German sales: 7.2 million [21](2)
French sales: sales 3 million[22](3)
Canadian sales: 12.5 million [23](2)
Australian sales: 917,500 [24](5)
Brazilian sales: 500,000 [25](6)
Argentinean sales: 1 million [26](7)
Swedish sales: 300,000 [27](8)
Swiss sales: 350,000 [28](9)
Austrian sales: 300,000 [29](6)
Total available certified sales: 244 million(11)		 1 billion[30][31]
600 million[32][33]
  • (1)Note that UK has launched its certification-based-market in 1973; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '73 may not show within their certification-searchable-database. Also note that UK's database system has recently gone through an update; therefore, it may take some time for all certifications for some artists reappear including The Beatles'.
  • (2)Note that both Germany and Canada have launched their certification-based-markets in 1975; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '75 may not show within their certification-searchable-databases.
  • (3)Note that France has launched its certification-based-market in 1968; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '68 may not show within their certification-searchable-database.
  • (5)Note that Australian certification-based database is from '97-'09; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '97 may not show within their certification-searchable-database.
  • (6)Note that both Brazil and Austria have launched their certification-based-markets in 1990; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '90 may not show within their certification-searchable-databases.
  • (7)Note that Argentina has launched its certification-based-market in 1980; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '80 may not show within their certification-searchable-database.
  • (8)Note that Swedish certification-based database is from '87-'08; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '87 may not show within their certification-searchable-database.
  • (9)Note that Swiss certification-based database is from '89-'09; therefore, some/all records released and sold prior to '89 may not show within their certification-searchable-database.
  • (11)Note that the certified-sales-figures will be periodically updated as some records have yet to reach a level of either the Gold or the Platinum awards, and some records have yet to reach a multi-platinum status. Also, note that 95% of the music markets have experienced a decline in their Certification-volumes due to music piracy which began in 1999-2000. Note that we are to post certified sales of those markets the databases of which contain a total figures of over 300,000.
  • (12) We are to post maximum of two sources for each claimed figure.

We will have the same scheme for Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. I may even construct a similar table for ABBA and perhaps for Queen later on as their claimed figures do not correspond with their actual sales either. Note that this is only going to be done for those artists with claimed figures of over 300m.--Harout72 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree *** Question: Can we not pull together some of the notes? Like Austria with Brazil, since their certification system started in the same year their lines are identical only with different country name. If we pulled it together it would take up less space. This is just a thought.*** --Taru29 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Harout72 (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree - with proviso for additional comments where applicable. i.e. Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra had the bulk of their sales pre-RIAA existance, Bring Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley has extensive catalogue of releases of which 90% never were certified (Bing's estimate is 5,000 releases, Franks 1000, and Elvis 900-1000), that this does not take into account catalogue sales (USA/Canada), or the asian market (Oricon - Japan is a major contributor to legal sales (20% I believe), China/Hong Kong/Malaysia/Indonesian for illegal sales. Eight88 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra in a new section please. The suggested tables are going to be constructed for The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson for now. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree JFonseka (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"comment is very brief and to the point please" --- Please make note of this wish and post long comments in other sections, or make it brief /2-3 line outmost, possibly less/. --Taru29 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. For detailed explanation read Final model discussion. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Wikipedia does not use stats CALCULATED UP by its own editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does read the policy "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." JFonseka (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree Needed to be able to accurately display the necessary information for the subjectHitthat (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Book of Golden Disks

The following is from "The Book of Golden Disks" - from Joseph Murrells in 1977 ISBN 0214205126. He published several books on best selling artists worldwide, and could be a good source from a VR for early sales. Global Sales for Bing Crosby - over 400 million, The Beatles 575 million, Elvis 350 million, Elton John 235 million, Mantovani 270 million, ABBA 62 million, Frank Sinatra 100 million, The Rolling Stones 145 million, Herb Albert 240 million. This is record sales (not just album sales) up to end of 1975. Of course, many of these groups/artists have continued to sell i.e. this is prior to EJ's Candle in the Wind best Seller, and at the beginning of ABBA's raise in popularity, or Beatles #1 album that had massive sales Eight88 (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Final model discussion

First of all I think that final model is good but omission of note about under-certified records released after the start of certain certification database makes table misleading (and biased). Harout72 mentioned all cases why some certification figures for The Beatles and Elvis are small(er) but he don't wanna put very important note about records which have reached either the Gold or the (multi)Platinum award level but still didn't got (new) certification because Record Companies didn't apply for awards (reasons are not important here). Without note about under-certified records all readers will assume that all new(er) records are properly certified and that is without doubt wrong. With notes Harout72 only covered under-certified records released prior the start of certain cetification databases. Double standards!
Also very important in table's figures I noticed that Harout72 count US figures differently then in the rest of world. For example The Beatles have released many multi-disc albums like for example Anthology Volume 1, 2, 3 or The Beatles 1962-1966 & 1967-1970 etc. In RIAA certifications all sale figures of those multi-disc sets are multiplied with 2 so for example Anthology Volume 1 was certified 8×Platinum by RIAA but 8× here represents 4m copies sold. 4m people bought that album but with purchasing it they got 2 cds in it so actually 8 million units were sold. Problem is, that around the world those 4m copies sold were counted as 4m not 8m like in US. So at the end we have in table that if you sell 4m copies of 2-disc set album in US you will get 8 million in total certified sale figure but if you sell 4m copies of same album in UK you will get only 4 million in total certified sale figure in table (actually 3.9m because platinum is 300k in UK so 13×300k=3.9m). We must count multi-disc sets in all countries around the world in the same way. So we must divide all certification figures of multi-disc sets in US or we must multiply same multi-disc set figures with 2 around the wrorld.
--Z.K. HAL (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained to you in as many possible ways as I could that record companies do not necessarily apply for a certification every time a record reaches a certification level. I have even given you an example of that in the discussions above. As for the double discs, I must confess that, because you constantly jump from one point to another, all your statements eventually end up making no sense. Look at the way you have phrased these sentences: Problem is, that around the world those 4m copies sold were counted as 4m not 8m like in US. So at the end we have in table that if you sell 4m copies of 2-disc set album in US you will get 8 million in total certified sale figure but if you sell 4m copies of same album in UK you will get only 4 million in total certified sale figure in table (actually 3.9m because platinum is 300k in UK so 13×300k=3.9m). We must count multi-disc sets in all countries around the world in the same way. So we must divide all certification figures of multi-disc sets in US or we must multiply same multi-disc set figures with 2 around the wrorld. What do you expect the reader to understand from all that? And I haven't used 300,000 as a UK's platinum volume while calculating figures for records released before the decline. It's 300,000 now, it was 400,000 before. --Harout72 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout72, don't you understand that your explanation about fact that record companies do not necessarily apply for a certification every time a record reaches a certification level doesn't change a fact that there are still many under-certified records out there. Your explanation is another proof that there are under-certified records and you didn't say a word about that in your table! I'll repeat, without note about under-certified records all readers will assume that all new(er) records are properly certified. Regular reader don't know anything about your explanation or about fact that there are many under-certified records which have reached either the Gold or the (multi)Platinum award level but still didn't got (new) certification. So if you want, put note in article with your explanation that record companies do not necessarily apply for a certification every time a record reaches a certification level or something like that, that is good enough. EOD
About double-discs, I will repeat... In US, if you sell 500,000 copies of 1-disc record you will get Gold certification (500,000) but if you sell 500,000 copies of 2-disc record you will get Platinum certification (1 million) but you actually didn't sold million copies, you sold 500,000 but RIAA multiply that number with 2 because there are 2 disc in every bought record. In UK if you sell 300,000 copies of 1-disc record you will get Platinum award = 300,000 sold records, and if you sell 300,000 copies of 2-disc record you will also get Platinum award = 300,000 sold records. In UK 1-disc or 2-disc it doesn't matter. So I'll repeat again, for example:
In US: 500,000 sold copies of 2-cd record = 1,000,000 !!! in certification
In UK: 300,000 sold copies of 2-cd record = 300,000 in certification
Real, correct total (UK+US) is 800,000 sold records (or 1,6 million discs because there is 2 discs in every bought record). In your table you don't count records properly so you will have 1,3 million sold records (in this case) because you count 1,000,000 from US and 300,000 from UK !? That is wrong... Do you understand now? If you count 1,000,000 from US you also must count UK number×2=600,000 so your total will be 1,6m and that represents total amount of sold discs but real sale is 800,000 records. 800,000 people bought that 2-cd album. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RIAA Certification requirements here clearly states that Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification, in other words, if one purchases a Double-CD, it will be considered a purchase of two units. And the purchase of the two units will be counted as two units towards either gold or platinum certification award. It nowhere, mentions that the Double-CD should be counted as one-unit but it serves as two-units when considering certifications. Let me put this in even simpler format for you, when a Double CD receives a gold certification it means it has sold 250,000 cases but each unit within the case is counted as one unit by RIAA. You have to be able to distinguish the difference between a "CD case" which has nothing to do with the way RIAA counts them and what the "CD case contains". In other words, what matters and counts is how many CDs each case contains inside. RIAA does not certify the cases, it certifies the units inside. Can you understand this? I can't believe I had to write a speech to make you understand something as simple as that.--Harout72 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout72... Hahaha! You just explained something that I already explained in post above yours and BTW I also explained that in my reply to Taru29 in Gold & Platinum certifications in Sweden. Now read again how UK counts 2-cd records.
Your total for artist who sold...
500,000 copies of 2-cd record = 1,000,000 in certification in US and
300,000 copies of 2-cd record = 300,000 in certification in UK
is 1.3 million becuase you count apples and oranges together. LOL
Real total certified sale is 800,000 records (1.6 million units). Artist recieved royalties for 500,000 sold copies in US and 300,000 sold copies in UK. Your 1.3 million total is complete nonsense. Regarding total available certified sales you must count everywhere (in every country) 2-cd records like 1 copy or like 2 copies.
Look this example...
Artist A sold 600,000 copies of 2-cd record in UK. That is 600,000 in certification in UK.
Artist B sold 500,000 copies of 2-cd record in US. That is 1,000,000 in certification in US.
Artist C sold 300,000 copies of 2-cd record in UK. That is 300,000 in certification in UK.
Artist D sold 250,000 copies of 2-cd record in US. That is 500,000 in certification in US.
Your list of best selling artists here (counting apples as oranges):
1. Artist B with 1 million
2. Artist A with 600,000
3. Artist D with 500,000
4. Artist C with 300,000
Of course, regarding total certified sales, list of best selling artists here is:
1. Artist A with 600,000 sold records or 1,2 million units
2. Artist B with 500,000 sold records or 1 million units
3. Artist C with 300,000 sold records or 600,000 units
4. Artist D with 250,000 sold records or 500,000 units
Anyway, I must show this "discussion" on few forums! You will be famous! Cheers! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You are really lost in the world of delusion. I can't help you from this point on, quite frankly, I don't think anybody else can. --Harout72 (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

...and the Earth is flat and the Sun is spinning around it... Yeah I know, hehehe! Regarding total certified sales you are the one who counts 2-cd record in one country as 1 copy and in another country as 2 copies. What a joke! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gold & Platinum certifications in Sweden

Last week I send e-mail to info@ifpi.se and asked them few questions... among others I asked them about changes of gold/platinum certifications. Today I got answer and...
For singles:
until October 1st, 1996: Gold 25,000, Platinum 50,000
until July 1st, 2003: Gold: 15,000, Platinum: 30,000
since July 1st, 2003: Gold: 10,000, Platinum: 20,000
For albums:
until October 1st, 1996: Gold 50,000, Platinum 100,000
until January 1st, 2002: Gold: 40,000, Platinum: 80,000
until November 1st, 2006: Gold: 30,000, Platinum: 60,000
since November 1st, 2006: Gold: 20,000, Platinum: 40,000

Here is pdf document which I got in e-mail. I uploaded it on Mediafire:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=8525afc5f9d09b6eaaca48175a79d1c3e04e75f6e8ebb871

(BTW yesterday I saw that four years ago another member from ukmix also asked same question.) --Z.K. HAL (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And the point of this is? JFonseka (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
? The point of this is that you have Sweden in table and of course you need history of gold/platinum certifications changes in Sweden if you want correct certification figure. You need history of changes for counting. OK? FYI Harout72 counting sales and all of you say agree or OK to everything he does (his own research, suggestions etc.) and none of you do own research and at the end you will have wrong numbers and biased notes in this article because Harout72 beside all good work also makes a mistakes! During past 2+ weeks all of you only attacked people who don't share your POV. You attack, trash & ignore. FYI Harout72 wrote 10 days ago during insulting (!) Vieira guy (music enthusiastic mentioned in WSJ article and also ukmix forum's member) that: "In Sweden, for example the certification-volume has never been 100,000 units for a platinum album, it's been 60,000 (at its peak) before music piracy began. Something as simple as certification-volumes are, especially, for a person who spends hours, days, weeks analyzing record-sales, he should know the fundamentals of music-markets better than that." So when Harout72 write something like that you of course don't have anything to say but when I wrote correct, real history of Gold & Platinum certifications changes in Sweden you ask me "And the point of this is?" ?!?! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your link doesn't function as excitedly as you manage to put your thoughts in a writing Z.K. HAL. I'm unable to get your link re-direct the page to the document. until October 1st, 1996: Gold 50,000, Platinum 100,000, what exactly made Sweden's platinum volume decline in 1996? All other markets experienced the decline after 1999 or 2000. In other words, there was no CD burning or any other type of piracy going on during '95 or '96. I didn't think that someone who reads and collects Billboard magazines all the time would feel the need to contact info@ifpi.se to find out about the changes in certification volumes, because it's the Billboard magazine where I read the 60,000 for platinum albums in Sweden. The issue I've read this in was way before January 1st, 2002 which is the date that you have above indicating that the platinum volume has supposedly turned to 60,000 from 80,000. --Harout72 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Here is link for you again: http://download544.mediafire.com/2jnn1l3ldntg/ljjdknlw5vg/Guld+Platina+gr%C3%A4nser+genom+%C3%A5ren.pdf
Yes, among others, I have hundreds of Billboard magazines at home but that doesn't mean that I know everything. LOL I use e-mail regularly for research so where is the problem?! Anyway info@ifpi.se is official contact e-mail address of Swedish IFPI so if you don't believe me PLEASE contact Swedish IFPI. BTW regarding 100,000 figure, do you wanna bet? :) EOD Regarding platinum volume decline in Sweden... well I told you before that piracy isn't only problem for music industry but whatever... --Z.K. HAL (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout72: To avoid argument we could recalculate the Sweden numbers, but I need to say I do not find any official data about this since their site does not have historic certification limits uploaded unlike other databases /Switzerland does/. I've managed to download the pdf and it does not indicated that it's official. What's your thoughts about it? Should we recalculate and see how big a difference it makes?

Apparently RIAA states they count albums rather than discs and we cannot prove they count them per discs, while international they definitely count an album as 1 regardless of the number of discs it has. So I have doubts we have to give it a second thought.

Under certification will be solved with time thus it needs no note /why tell everyone that they collect up certificates to cut back fees? eventually they'll be listed/, so this is just an endless argument but I feel it will go on and on.:S --Taru29 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Taru29 did you read RIAA Gold and Platinum Certification Requirements?!?!
Multi-Disc Set
- Gold certification:
Quantity: 500,000 units. Package must include two or more Cds (or its tape and album equivalent.)
Requirements: Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification. *Minimum running time 100 minutes.
- Platinum Certification:
Quantity: One million units. Package must include two or more CDs ( or its tape and album equivalent.)
Requirements: Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification. *Minimum running time 100 minutes.
Q.E.D. Regarding Sweden certifications PLEASE send e-mail to info@ifpi.se and include as an attachment this pdf document and ask them is it authentic/correct or simply ask them about changes of gold/platinum certifications. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Ok, so if you can dig your self in everything and email to everyone then why don't you just make a calculation for them? I did too/I got around 240million units for The Beatles and for Elvis, that feels little inflated for Elvis for certified albums or too low for The Beatles but these lists were done while BPI was not online, I'm guessing something above 200million for MJ, somewhat more then Elvis and less then The Beatles/ you can make one too. Use the aformentioned websites and please do make a research for each years gold/platinum limits /for each listed country which did not list the changes/ and how they count multiple discs albums. Then back up your calculations with sources. We'll consider it once you did it.

2. This argument won't lead anywhere. Sweden does not find it important to publicate this information on their website when this would be important. If they don't find it important I don't see why we should, other countries posted this information on their sites and we did count with them /or at least I did/. Instead of arguing please at least try and prove thing, with calculations and such. You're not helping at all only keeping up the whole process. --Taru29 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Taru, let's not make any changes at the moment as far as Swedish figures go. I am assuming, just assuming that their platinum volume before 2000 might have been 80,000 as I'm certain seeing 60,000 in the Billboard for the beginning of 2000s, but again I would have to verify if it was 80k before that period. However, recalculating the Swedish figures is not going to make much of a difference because none of the three artists have gathered that many platinum/gold records in that country, at least not between '87-'08.--Harout72 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
You assume... 80,000! LOL Your comment is proof that you are not interested in truth. I don't know what is your goal here but obviously your table will be filled with made-up certification figures. Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.- Albert Einstein --Z.K. HAL (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Where's your calculation? I did my research, then Harout72 did his own. So if you think it's bad do your own. I'd love to see it. If it can be backed up I'm sure nobody will oppose it and it will be used. Or you think it's too much work and others should do it? Nobody will make a calculation that will fit your thoughts but YOU. So go for it. I'm waiting. --Taru29 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, for calculations you need lots of time and I respect your time & commitment... but every normal person who knows basic mathematical operations can sum up numbers for each artist in every county using/applying history of gold/platinum certifications changes and available certification awards from certification databases. For some countries one of the problems is to find history of gold/platinum certifications changes. You can't use made-up numbers and Harout72 did that in Swedish case. I provided real history of gold/platinum certifications changes in Sweden but unfortunately to check it you must sent e-mail to Swedish IFPI. Of course Harout72 will rather use false numbers and at the end this article will have wrong figures. Second important thing is that before counting you must define counting method(ology) and Harout72 didn't do that. You can't count 2-cd record in one country as 1 copy and in another country as 2 copies. It's stupid beyond belief. If you define consistent counting method(ology) and if you use correct history of gold/platinum certifications changes for every country at the end, you, Harout72 and me will get same total certified figures for every single artist. FYI I did my calculation few years ago for some artists (including MJ and The Beatles) and I'm using all possible sources from magazines, books and certification databases and periodically (every few months) I update (and/or correct wrong) figures. Without defined consistent counting method(ology) I don't see the point for providing "my" figures and sources. Obviously my certification figures will be different then Harout72's "apples+oranges" figures. Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis Presley sales are wrong

it says on his wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley

He is one of the best-selling solo artists in the history of music, selling over one billion records worldwide

and this is the source they use http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_billion_record_sales.shtml

this cant be reliable someone please change it

im not one to say how much he has sold but there is this article from 2007 which is saying he has sold 300 million woldwide

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=30-years-after-his-death-why-elvis-aaron-presley-is-still-the-king-uh-huh-huh&method=full&objectid=19639018&siteid=66633-name_page.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the wjs article also states http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

michael jackson sales are an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million

This means he has out sold elvis

Mr. Jackson's record label, Sony Music, declined to share sales numbers. Ms. Bain didn't respond to requests for comment; she sued Mr. Jackson in May after their business relationship ended. In her lawsuit, she claimed Mr. Jackson sold "over 1 billion records world-wide t

that could be wrong but that it what it says

It also speaks about other artists sales

Inflated numbers aren't unique to Mr. Jackson. The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales record also reflects an estimate of the number of songs, not albums, according to trackers of such landmarks. Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million.

Units could be interpreted to mean a rough tally of the number of songs sold, not albums. But many journalists and fans interpreted the figure as albums sold, and a wildly inflated number was born —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


The claims of a billion plus album sales for The Beatles and Elvis is record company hype. The only two reliable measuring agencies in the US - the RIAA and Soundscan have The Beatles considerably ahead of Elvis Presley in album sales. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever and confirms The Beatles as the biggest selling artists of all time.

1. The Beatles (40 albums) 400,000,000 2. Michael Jackson (14 albums) 350,000,000 3. Elvis Presley (150 albums) 300,000,000 4. Madonna (16 albums) 275,000,000 5. Nana Mouskouri (450 albums) 250,000,000

To say that Elvis has 300 uncertified albums in the US does not stand up to scutiny. According to Joel Whitburn’s Top Pop Albums 1955-1992, Elvis released 96 albums that charted during that period. Of those 22 did not make the top 100, that is they sold very few copies. Another 26 did not make the top 40 again selling few copies. Elvis had 48 top 40 albums, 25 top 10 albums and 9 number 1 albums between 1955 and 1992.

Elvis has not released 200 plus albums in the US in the past 17 years.

The Beatles had 27 top 40 albums, 23 top 10 albums and 15 number 1 albums up to 1992. The Beatles currently have 19 number 1 albums compared to 10 number 1 albums by Elvis.

The Beatles are the biggest selling recording artists of all time.

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry published its updated list of the 150 highest selling artists ever.

01. The Beatles 400,000,000

02. Michael Jackson 350,000,000

03. Elvis Presley 300,000,000

04. Madonna 275,000,000

05. Nana Mouskouri 250,000,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As you cannot find a way to count every single unit sold world wide then you cannot say that Elvis is the biggest selling artist of all time. If you look at the charted positions of the Elvis albums that were released prior to 1958 then there were no massive sales during that period.

Also the two albums that were released around the time of his death (Moody Blue on 7/23/1977 and Elvis in Concert on 10/29/1977 which peaked at #3 and #5 respectively on the Billboard charts) did not have massive sales.

You can talk all you like about massive sales being not measured by RCA or the RIAA but the sales that were measured were not great - it is strange that the measurable album sales were few but the sales not measured were massive. As a statistician by profession I work with data/facts not supposition, rumour or guesswork. In the audited figures The Beatles have sold more records (albums and singles included) that any other recording artist. Sales that cannot be proven are just not valid and are not reliable. If you cannot trust Soundscan and the RIAA then you cannot trust any figures.

Elvis may have more partials but that does not mean they are each .9 of a million. They may only be a few thousand - you should not make assumptions. As The Beatles have outsold Elvis by 27 million since 1991 (source: Soundscan) when each album sold is measurable, this is consistent with The Beatles outselling Elvis by 24 million in the previous years considering The Beatles gave Elvis many years and many millions start. The Beatles 1 album has sold 11 million plus albums in the US compared to 4 million plus for Elvis Number 1’s album - a considerable difference in the same market place for the same product. This is a potent indication of their current sales capacity.

You may think Elvis is the best - you are entitled to your opinion. That is subjective and I am not entering that debate. When it comes to record sales that can be measured then The Beatles win easily.

I don't think so that anyone ever questioned if The Beatles are or are not the best selling band ever. Even in this current form, the list has them on top. Also, we do consider changing the number for Elvis and The Beatles too, and this change is expected in the new form of the list. That is if we can agree on the form and notes posted.--Taru29 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson michael jackson wikipedia page it says he has estimated sales between 350 million and 750 million records worldwide i agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles The Beatles sold between 600 million and one billion records internationally I agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis it say He is one of the best-selling solo artists in the history of music, selling over one billion records worldwide

that is wrong so change it since both michael jackson and the beatles pages have been changed like we said we will give each of these artist the same treatment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to explain to you lot than both michael jackson and the beatles sales have been changed on their wikipedia page

if you read the link above for elvis wikipedia page it says he has sold over 1 billion that is wrong beacuse he has not outsold the beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just saying that relible sources such as emi (beatles 1 billion) and sony (michael jackson 750 million) that are saying that they have sold this much

but elvis sales remian at over 1 billion even though their are much more reliable soruces for both the beatles and michael jackson which claim they have sold that amount —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just saying we should change elvis presley wikipedia page from over 1 billion to claimed sales of 1 billion or estimated sales between 300 million and 1 billion http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1760014.stm http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=30-years-after-his-death-why-elvis-aaron-presley-is-still-the-king-uh-huh-huh&method=full&objectid=19639018&siteid=66633-name_page.html

like we done for both michael jackson and the beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

page protection

Just rememeber when the page protection expires 20:26, 2 September 2009

when someone does change michael jackson sales back to 750 million someone else will change it back to 350 million

but both elvis and the beatles sales will remain at 1 billion with no one changing it

then you will see how these artits will be treated differntly to michael jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It will all be changed to a proper format if people stop spamming the page with the same repetitive information already posted a million times, the longer you want to flagellate at why your favourite artist isn't up there with irrelevant comparisons to others, the longer it will take. JFonseka (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is not what you think is right or wrong

it is about given reliable sources even if you disagree with it

and many more sources are quoting the 750 mill figure. whether you think theyre copying eachother is irrelvant

thier are overinflated stats for nearley all the artits on the list

but you change this mans sales beacuase he is one of the most famous if not the most famous artist on the list

you are completely defeating the purpose

just think of your own reputation, and what you are supposed to be doing on this website and change the figure to where it sat happily before, and where it was consistent with the other methods used —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to all the users who contributed through the research of articles and citing them, the various users who helped in translation of certain databases such as Taru29, and the ones who offered constructive criticism and insight, the moderators who took notice and put the proper guidelines around editing this controversial article, and most of all Harout for maintaining the page and putting in the hours to go through the correct avenues to provide accurate and valuable information to the general reader. There's still more to be done in the future and to keep up with the updates, but at least we've gotten somewhere now. Cheers JFonseka (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a pretty good transition after the unprotection too, nice to see a standard has been set and followed. Good stuff. Might give the notes sections a little reformatting later on. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I too would like to thank those editors who were able to see what I was trying to accomplish. But most of all, my personal thanks goes to, JFonseka, k.i.a.c. This entire place suddenly turned into a kind of battlefield that I had no idea I was capable of creating such a thing. But both of you helped me a lot, and I am grateful for that. As for the list, it's true, we need to make more changes. I think the rest of the changes should be much easier than this :). Thanks again guys.--Harout72 (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


The Whole List is Wrong, your a fool if you Believe it

for starters this is about RECORD SALES, which includes albums, singles and downloads, so why the hell have some artists got albums sales insted of record sales!! perfetic

E.g. 2 Pac = 75 Million+ Album Sales, 10 Million+ Singles Sales, 5 Million+ Download sales, this guy alone should have 90 million record sales, there are fine links for all this information if you go to each album and single individually and add them up!, not rocket science

1. All sources must be published by highly Reliable Third Parties

Let me emphasize that we are to accept only highly reliable sources here at List of best-selling music artists (examples of those could be found at the reference section of the page). We've had lots of folks here in the past who have made attempts in adding artists to this page with sources that aren't reliable, and those edits have been quickly reverted. If one is not sure of the reliability of a source which is going to be submitted to support the sales figures of an artist, I suggest that editors discuss that here at the talk page first before proceeding. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not true

(no matter how big you write it)

Sources must conform to exactly the same community-agreed policies that apply to every other article - see the core policy, WP:V.

Editors are encouraged to be bold.  Chzz  ►  00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true that sources need to be highly reliable? Do you suggest that we allow editors to support artists' sales figures with official sites or youtube like sources?--Harout72 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to highlight that this article, like all other articles, is subject to the policies and guidelines that have been agreed through the consensus of the community, and not by any arbitrary rules that may be stated at the top of this talk page. I noted that these purported rules have remained in-place at the top of this page, despite comments by other Wikipedians being archived, and I wanted to make it clear that this was not normal practice.
If you believe that amendments to policy are required, then please propose them in the appropriate places; please don't claim ownership of this article by making your own rules.  Chzz  ►  05:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Don't claim ownership of this article by making your own rules? How dare you even say that to me when all I have done for nearly two years is keep this article as clean as it could have been kept. If we have two different sales figures one claimed by non-prestigious news establishment and the other by a prestigious one, we should accept the figure presented by the latter and that's what I mean with the title of the top section. Unfortunately, we have many editors who can't even distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources; therefore, I feel that it's needed to emphasize what is acceptable. And do you mind explaining what you mean with this statement I noted that these purported rules have remained in-place at the top of this page, despite comments by other Wikipedians being archived, and I wanted to make it clear that this was not normal practice because I am feeling rather insulted for being accused of ownership as nothing of that kind is taking place here.--Harout72 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am only too familiar with the problems of editors inability to understand policies and guidelines, and I agree that this is worth emphasizing. My objection is when it is displayed in the top of the talkpage, as I am concerned that newer contributors might misconstrue the message as some kind of 'regulations' regarding this article, rather than a regular talkpage comment (which would be added in a section at the end of the page).
Harout72 asked for explanation of my statement, above; I refer to the fact that the section was added by Harout72 here, on 21 March 2009. Since that date, Harout72 has moved many other comments from this page into archives, most recently creating Archive 10, in which comments up until about 4 September 2009 were archived - but not the entry at the top of the page.  Chzz  ►  04:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, as you have pointed out above, I have archived almost everything except the top section of the talk-page because editors continue to add their favourite artists to the list with unreliable sources. Therefore, I've chosen to leave it at the top just to remind everyone of the reliable sources, nothing else. I am not sure why having it at the top could be viewed as a problem when my intentions are only to have editors insert artists into the article with reliable sources, and I clearly state that above If one is not sure of the reliability of a source which is going to be submitted to support the sales figures of an artist, I suggest that editors discuss that here at the talk page first before proceeding. I'll be very frank, this happens to be a very difficult page to look after, it's a target for both vandals and editors who are not vandals but love seeing their favourite artists at the top of the list, and they submit artists with all kinds of sources which are not even close to being reliable. It's just a reminder, it's not a regulation, not a dictation. But since it's a page that attracts lot of music fans, it's something that informs editors that they should not think they could do with the page whatever they'd like.--Harout72 (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - maybe we can come to some kind of compromise here, by adding a notice in a standard format, citing policy. Rather like {{calm talk}}. It might even be a useful template for other articles. Let's see;

That's just a rough suggestion; all ideas (pic, wording, colour, bold, links, etc) very welcome.  Chzz  ►  04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything against this, but I'd like to see the points on sources emphasized and re-phrased. Perhaps, something like this:

--Harout72 (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - I think we're making good progress here; I understand your ideas, I think; I worry that that notice might be a bit long for the type of people we're aiming this at to notice; it really does need something clear and bold, I agree. Not too sure about the purple (thinking of people with different skins and suchlike; best to keep colours simple and few), and having everything in bold - trouble is, if it's all bold, things don't stand out - in the above, because the link to RS is bolded, it's actually 'anti-bold'; no great objections though. Maybe a bit of <big> might help. Erm...let's see;

For more emphasis, to make it stand out from other boxes, we could consider the border and/or 'roadworks' notice on templates such as "Template:Community article probation";

NOTE: below is here for illustration purposes only

 Chzz  ►  10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, everything's looking good in your recent modification, I agree with the second box too. I was also thinking if we should insert some of the main points from the section (2) (immediately below) into your suggested box. That way we could keep only the databases in place.

Let me know if you think it's too long or we should simply leave the lower section as it is and where it is.--Harout72 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not happy with that, for two reasons - firstly, yes, I think that it might be too long. Secondly, it introduces things that are debatable - I think that the ideas presented there are very much up for discussion; again, it is starting to sound like a 'special policy' applies to this article, which it does not. Whether or not an artist with RS (e.g. Times) stating their sales figures can or cannot be included is a matter for debate and discussion; there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says it needs to also appear in those specific databases. I do understand what you mean by it, but, the reality is that it's non-standard; if some other people think that such an artist should be included, and you do not, then we need to discuss that and form a consensus; it's not 'fair' to declare at the top of this talk page that there is some 'official rule' about use of figures from the databases - unless some policy could be written stating that.  Chzz  ►  16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, we could change the wording not to make it sound like a policy/regulation. I am simply trying to keep inflated figures out the door, I think we are privileged to have the databases available to us for a quick fact checking. And rejecting those sales figures after checking and not finding evidence of actual sales within certification databases (which in their turn happen to be reliable sources) should not come in violation with the wikipedia policy. After all, we are not looking to match the figure the certifications represent with the figure that's published in reliable sources. Our goal is simply to see if there actually is evidence of enough sales as claimed by sources.--Harout72 (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose this, much shorter, to the point and more than useful. How about we add it and remove all of this confusing-to-the-common-reader nonsense at the top of the talk page? I don't believe it is announcing any further policies (where would you put policies for one specific page, anyway?), it just states that you may need to verify with certs, no different to verifying a disputed source in any case. Other than that, it's pretty straight-forward and obvious information that I believe is required if we're going to uphold any sort of integrity to this page. Kiac (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, it doesn't sound like a regulation yet it covers the nature of what needs to be done. We should implement it.--Harout72 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We could add the sources too, if that's helpful? Harout72, and whoever else reads this - if you agree to the below, I'll go ahead and put it on the top, and archive these 2 parts  Chzz  ►  22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea actually, I'd say it's good to go. --Harout72 (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Arvchived this thread and added the template to the talk page,  Chzz  ►  07:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

2. The list requires Highly Reliable Sources and Existing Gold/Platinum Certifications

What the title of this section means is that all artists, besides being supported by highly reliable sources, will also be checked for existence of Gold/Platinum Certifications. In other words, if an American act such as The Drifters for example, which may be claimed to have sold as many as 300 million records by reliable sources such as The Times in an article here (for example), but does not have any/enough Gold/Platinum certifications (which would suggest major record sales) in countries like US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Norway Mexico, Brazil etc., will not be allowed to be added to the list regardless of the time period they have begun their careers.

The following are the searchable databases for Silver/Gold/Platinum certifications in:

Exceptions: Acts/artists from heavily populated countries like China or India, for example, who have neither appeared on the charts of western/central European countries, Australasia and North America nor gathered certifications in those mentioned territories, and the music industries of which offer no searchable databases will be allowed with highly regarded sources.

Please post your questions and comments within a new section. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bone Thugs-n-Harmony

I would like to know if this site B.O.N.E has reliable source?--BigBossBlues (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid it's not. Please look at our reference sections here to see what kind of sources we have so far accepted. Such examples would be CNN, BBC, FOX News etc..--Harout72 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
OK what about this one New Times--BigBossBlues (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as I mentioned above, the articles must come either from highly regarded news services or highly regarded music related sources such as MTV, VH1, articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music or Universal Music are acceptable as well.--Harout72 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

There is a comparatively new duplicating article (List_of_best-selling_album_artists) which is under ongoing development, despite strong suggestions of delete or merge.

Possibly, some regulars from this page could have a look to avoid a degeneration into two contradictory or duplicating pages? 188.100.201.34 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ a
  2. ^ b
  3. ^ c
  4. ^ d
  5. ^ e
  6. ^ 1
  7. ^ 2
  8. ^ 3
  9. ^ 4
  10. ^ 5
  11. ^ 6
  12. ^ 7
  13. ^ 8
  14. ^ 8
  15. ^ 9
  16. ^ 6
  17. ^ 8
  18. ^ 10
  19. ^ 1
  20. ^ 2
  21. ^ 3
  22. ^ 4
  23. ^ 5
  24. ^ 6
  25. ^ 7
  26. ^ 8
  27. ^ 9
  28. ^ 6
  29. ^ 8
  30. ^ 6
  31. ^ 8
  32. ^ 8
  33. ^ 8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_10&oldid=1092033737"