Talk:List of best-selling music artists

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)

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

What the title of this section means is that all artists from now on, besides being supported by highly reliable sources, will also be checked for an 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 a single reliable source such as The Times in an article here (for example), but does not have any 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:

• USA RIAA
• UK BPI (Currently under construction, should be up and running soon)
• Germany IFPI Germany
• France SNEP, also see this
• Canada CRIA
• AustraliaARIA
• The Netherlands NVPI
• Sweden IFPI Sweden
• Switzerland SwissCharts
• Finland IFPI Finland
• Norway Norway
• Mexico Amprofon
• Brazil ABPD

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)

Michael Jackson's Sales Should Be At 750+ Million

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{editsemiprotected}}

Michael Jackson's sales need to be updated from 350+ Million to 750+ Million.

I have several reliable sources to backup my claims.

this tells you everything http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwordpass (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony's Official Statement on Michael Jackson's passing and his sales figures: http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

Official Sony Press Release about his "This is it" movie: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

And finally MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million and they cite several sources: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

--Mrparissm (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Cubs197 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note This change was reverted, hence further discussions below  Chzz  ►  02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Jackson recent sales

Due to recent published figures, it seems as though michael jackson's total shouldve increased, maybe up to 800 million. Does anyone agree with me or do you think this is premature? --Francopedorro (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe, the recent strong sales may narrow down the difference between the exaggerated figure of 750 million (which was most probably one of the tactics that Jackson's record company attempted to bring his fame back) and his actual sales.--Harout72 (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me MJ has sold in every country platinum pretty much did Elvis? or the Beatles? i dont think so thats racist and making Elvis to be a King of the World of music which is not realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.56.215 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 please do some research. How would him having sold 750 million records some how bring his fame back? Use common sense please. If you take The Beatles and Elvis's sales at face value from their record companies. You owe Michael Jackson the same respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrparissm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

fredaistair says - MJ's record company have never stated that he sold 750Million and never in writing, in fact Sony have wisely kept quiet as teh current hyped figure is good for business. Also The Wall Street Journal that has been listed as a source implies that it is inflated-so what sort of source is that. In fact it says it magically jumped from 210M to 750M, in fact this article proves the lie to the 750M. I would point out that Elvis sales figures of over a billion in 2001 come from Sony in writing,who specify that it was based on indivicual units.

The quality and accuracy of this sales listing has been diminished by the inflated MJ figures. There is hype, but this is total hype. Any proper count of MJ's sales albums and singles counted as seperate units would struggle to get much beyond the 300 Million mark. Are we in the propaganda business or in the business of giving at least reasonable figures

As to the point about Elvis/Beatles international sales, I suggest those questioning it visit Graceland, they will find 100's of international certifications for Elvis. It needs to be realised that the current international cerification body came into being well are the death of Elvis and the break up of The Beatles, nor does the the current body have the same respected status of The RIAA. In fact it is ignored by many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredaistair (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredaistair Sony has said it in writing. Here's a link to an OFFICIAL statement from Sony Music: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.--[[

--Mrparissm (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredaistair sys - Seriously friends Sony have never issued a formal statement on MJ's sales, on the contrary there is article after article and reports after reports that Sony are keeping silent on the subject of MJ's sales. Many other sources have picked up the 750 million figure including MTV as stated by the Wall Street Journal Article for casual sources.

To the best of my knowledge in fact, Sony/BGM in 2001 issued a press release claiming Elvis sales to be over a billion and claiming him to be the best selling. (same company as for MJ)and as far as I know this is the only time any record company has made this claim for anyone in written form.

We are all on the same side of trying to get reasonable accurate data. I know this is a difficult area. A suggestion, anyone with some influence or contact at Sony to at least ask them to give an approximate idea on sales in writing now. As they have both MJ and Elvis with them this would kill two birds with one stone. I respect both these guys and don't want to see either undersold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredaistair (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here Fredaistair. I don't want Michael Jackson's sales discounted either. Did you click on the links I provided? The first one is an official Press Release from Sony. So that is as credible as you can get right there. The second link is from MTV.com and they state he's sold 750 Million. If this is accurate enough for MTV to report I would think it would be accurate enough for here no? Harout72 specifically stated that MTV and a record company are reliable sources yet he still only cherry picks sources to fit his own agenda. Again CHECK the sources I provided. MJ has sold over 750 Million. And I will continue to post here until it's corrected.

--Mrparissm (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

fredaistair here is another OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM SONY MUSIC. Of course Harout72 will just ignore this: http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

It doesn't get more official than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Mrparissm (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredaistair says- I followed your thread and e-mailed Sony to ask if this was an official statement on the record sales and the contradiction in the Wall Street Journal and why there seems to be difference if you tot up the individual album sales reported. Lets get to the bottom of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredaistair (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fredaistair. It looks like someone reviewed my sources and agrees with them and finally changed Michael Jackson's sales on here. I think you and a couple other people are getting too hung up on the WSJ article. That article has NO facts and is only stating what MIGHT be the case. They also state that Elvis's sales numbers MIGHT be off. But regardless of what that article says Michael Jackson's officials sales numbers stand at 750+ Million and Elvis's stand at 1 Billion +. There's no way to prove them wrong so it's best to trust the official statements. t his tells you everything http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world

--Mrparissm (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Did Bob Marley sold over 300 million albums? No, he didn't.

The sales figure for Bob Marley is highly inflated. Some certifications for Bob Marley in the biggest music industries:

US = 16,5 million

UK = 1,8 million

Canada = 850.000

France = 6.633.500

Germany = 1.500.000

..... = maybe in total 100 million albums

How much did he sold in Africa? China? Japan? More than 200 million? I don't think so.

Is it possible to put Bob Marley in the 200 million category? I think it's more realistic.Christo jones (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This fansite or official site says that Marley sold over 50 million albums! Fansites are not reliable, but why do they mention 50 million? [1]

Other source says 50 million [2]

This source says 250 million [3]

Maybe we can hold it on 300 million? Christo jones (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I too believe that the figure is inflated and it's not supposed to be more than 100-120 million records, but the sources you are providing are not reliable and official sites are not considered third party sources. If no other reliable sources are located for Marley in the near future with figures close to his actual sales (as his certifications suggest), I may simply remove him from the list altogether.--Harout72 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC

Iron Maiden Official sales Figures

The Official Iron Maiden website states they have sold 75 mln copies, source: but this is the representative for sources of EMI Label Distribution & Purchasting. Total record sales of IRON MAIDEN is estmated as 100 mln source: http://www.soundunwound.com/sp/contributor/view/Iron+Maiden?contributorId=6850&ref=AADP many other sources say like that. If you could be accurant and believeable, submit these datas and rearrange Maiden's position in Bestselling artists ranking poll. MAIDEN FANS Community shall be grateful . Check this out and be quick.

Sure, I will be as quick as I possibly can. No reliable sources provided above. --Harout72 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Jones

This article says that Tom Jones has sold 100 million records. Can someone add him to the list?75.142.54.211 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Page not found" - the link is dead. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I found another source [4] 75.142.54.211 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a highly reliable source. Jones does not seem to have gathered that many certifications around the world. In other words, the number of his certifications doesn't suggest a figure as large as 100 million records. I would have to wait for the UK's searchable database for certifications to be back online, not to mention that Jones would need a highly reliable source, one such as CNN or Fox News etc..--Harout72 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Eddy Arnold should be removed from the top selling artists.

The notion that Eddy Arnold sold 85 million albums is problematic for a number of reasons, thus his removal from the list is necessary... 1) Despite his success in the fifties and sixties, he only scored one double platinum album in the U.S. (2 million) and two gold albums (combined 1 million), for 3 million in certifiable solo artist sales (see www.riaa.com). Granted, lower level certifications for albums selling less than 500,000 units will not be indexed by the RIAA searchable database. With that said, the RIAA does not recognize Eddy Arnold as one of the top 100 selling artists in the U.S., meaning that he sold well under 10 million units (including non-certified albums and singles) in the U.S., possibly only 3 million units total. 2) The lack of record sales in the U.S. means that he must have sold 70 to 82 million albums in other markets. However, this is very unlikely since his recordings were promoted in the genre of country music, which was not heavily promoted in foreign markets in the 50's through 70's. To achieve the 85 million in sales he would need extremely strong sales in foreign markets, which he does not have, according foreign sales databases. In addition, I could find no records of his solo artist singles charting in markets outside of the U.S. (and his singles were primarily charted as country hits, with a few exceptions). 3) To account for the credited 85 million in sales reported in his billboard.com biography, the only plausible explanation is that the reported sales figures include his production, songwriting, session performances, and other credits on releases outside of his solo work (AKA: his involvement with other recording artists). His achievements as an artist, producer, songwriter, and musician are laudable; however, he should not be listed as one of the world’s best selling artists. In fact, his personal "artist" sales should be considered moderate at best and nowhere near "best-selling" of all time. Thus, Eddy Arnold must be removed unless starts including songwriters, producers, and session musicians. For example, if Eddy Arnold is allowed to be included, so should famous producer Bob Rock. As a producer, engineer, and songwriter Bob Rock boasts sales close to 200 million. However, Bob Rock is not Motley Crue or Metallica, the actual “selling” artists. Continuing with this logic, Steve Lukather from Toto should be considered one of the best selling artists of all time because of his session work on Michael Jackson's "Thriller." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkdoc5150 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A question

Does The Daily Telegraph count as a reliable source? If so, there's a lot to add.75.142.54.211 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC

Yes, it is a reliable source, but please do not add anything to the list without discussing what artists you are speaking of as we will also have to check and see if the sales figures provided within the sources correspond with artist's certifications (sales).--Harout72 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is reliable, then Michael Jackson's figure is completely overblown and should be only 300 million.[5]75.142.54.211 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, The Monkees should be added.[6]75.142.54.211 (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And Glen Campbell.[7]75.142.54.211 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Micheal Jackson: I have to say that I agree with the 300 million in record sales for Jackson as his certifications suggest that his actual sales should not surpass 300-350 million. I believe, we're going to begin seeing more of this sort of logical figures in the near future for Jackson due to his recent strong sales as major news services will want to publish his new worldwide record sales (hopefully after they carefully study the certifications). Once I get my hands on more than one reliable source claiming 300-350 million for Jackson, I am going to degrade his position on the list.

• • Michael Jackson 350m source on CNN here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.54.211 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• The Monkess: They have sold some 20 million in the States, I don't show anything in Germany, nothing in Canada, nothing in the Netherlands and the list goes on and on. I believe their actual sales should be around 30-40 million maximum. We really should not fill the List of best-selling music artists with inflated figures.

• Glen Campbell: I am counting 10.5 million in US, just 50,000 in Canada, he naturally doesn't have anything in France or in Germany. I'd say his actual sales should be around 20-25 million worldwide. Again not a good candidate for this list.--Harout72 (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated Michael Jackson's sources and placed him within the bracket of 300-499 million as both his newer sources as well as his Certifications (actual sales) suggest. If you come across more of his correct, non-inflated figures of 300-350 million, please feel free to bring them to my attention. Thanks for the sources.--Harout72 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) here is proff that michael sold 750 million http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world your sources are wrong how can you believe cnn and Daily Telegraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwordpass (talk • contribs) 22:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bette Midler

The Bette Midler Wikipedia page claims she sold over 100 million records. Shouldn't she be on here? 173.88.94.212 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 100 million at her page was not referenced. I have already removed the figure from her page.--Harout72 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Diana Ross

This article [8] says that Diana Ross has sold more than 100 million records. Does it mean her solo career or her entire career, including her work with the Supremes?75.142.54.211 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked to see what her actual sales looks like in different territories, and it shows that she has sold some 11 million records in US, some 600,000 in Canada, she has sold only 100,000 in France, only 80,000 in the Netherlands. She does not seem to have certifications in most of the countries including Germany, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Norway. All in all, her actual sales does clearly show that she could not have sold as many as 100 million records. My estimation for Ross would be 50 million in the best case scenario. We really should not add her to the list with the source you are providing above. I would, however, consider adding her to the list if you could locate another reliable source which claims a figure around the 50 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Don Cornell

Don Cornell has sold 50 million records according to LA Times[9]75.142.54.211 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cornell has no chance of being added to this list regardless of what figure LA Times claims, I'm afraid, as he doesn't have a single certification in US nor anywhere else. --Harout72 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Three Dog Night

I doubt this source is reliable, but I just wanted to check with you.[10]75.142.54.211 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not. Perhaps, they could use a source of this kind at other wiki pages to support statements, and it should be OK as long they don't support a significant statement with it.--Harout72 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

elvis and beatles sales are inflated too

i see you have downgraded some artists while keeping elvis and beatles at 1 billion plus. the truth is their sales are overinflated too. i sense a bias that you were eagerly looking for ways to put artists like michael jackson, bing crosby, and cliff richard down the list. i notice you are looking at some figures from riaa or uk sales, but that is a flawed approach to measuring worldwide sales for handpicked artists. in fact, some artists sell the vast majority outside the us and uk while others sell mostly within those countries, so the approach is not reliable. i do feel their numbers were probably higher than reported, but if you heading in that direction, i hope you are equally as eager in looking for more reasonable figures for elvis and the beatles as well. but i do hope you don't continue using us and uk sales as the basis for measuring worldwide sales. Vpuliva (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I use databases of dozens of countries around the world (more than what I have within the discussion section number 2) to study sales, I don't just remove artists without a reason, and this is most definitely not handpicking. I only remove those artists whose figures within sources are outrageously inflated, whose figures in no way correspond with their actual sales. Unfortunately, we still have many others on the list and I will get to them all. Michael Jackson currently is where his actual sales suggest that he needs to be, I have very carefully studied Jackson's sales through his certifications (which by the way I'm going to do also with Elvis and The Beatles) before I came to the conclusion that the 750 million was simply a marketing/promotional tool which was tossed in just a couple of years ago by his record company in hopes that they could bring his fame back. --Harout72 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't believe in the majority of sales figures by these artists including michael jackson among several others. I do feel however, from your comments in discussion and in the edits, that you are more eager to downgrade some more than others, as in the repeated comments on michael jackson. It seems like you have your own interpretation of sales figures and look around for sources to fit. You may or may not be accurate, but since there is no official worldwide tally, it seems odd that you feel you are in a position to change figures as you like. With such an uncertain topic, the best thing, which may not be the most accurate, is to go with what MOST sources say (which does usually go along with their recording companies). But if you continue to do what you're doing, I truly hope that you aren't using the article to your liking and I hope then that you downgrade the other extremely exaggerated figures, including those of presley and the beatles.Vpuliva (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid criticising Harout, he does a great job maintaining this article, and i've been watching for months - his methods are always fine. You come here and say you "don't believe in the majority of sales figures by these artists" - where's your proof? What gives your opinion merit? Complaining can be done by anyone, action is another thing. If you want to help improve the page, go for it, but persuading and accusing is not helping us here. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vpuliva, I have already explained to you above that I will analyze the sales of all those artists the figures of whose look inflated. Unfortunately, I cannot get to them all over night as it takes hours sometimes to study the sales of those especially, who have released and sold countless records throughout their careers (The Beatles for example, took me two+ hours this afternoon. Their sales; by the way, stands around 500 million worldwide). My purpose is not to spend my time and effort on discrimination, if that's what you're driving at with this statement I do feel however, from your comments in discussion and in the edits, that you are more eager to downgrade some more than others. By the way, Michael Jackson's figure (350 million) that we currently have, is as correct as it can ever get. --Harout72 (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, kiac. I also think recording companies have a tendency to exaggerate an artist's sales numbers - I was agreeing that recording companies tend to exaggerate numbers for most recording artists - which is what the old figures tended to reflect. But since there is no official worldwide tally, I feel it is odd that someone feels they are in some special position to change the numbers. The newer numbers may actually be more accurate or might not be, but again there's no official tally, so it's possible these can come from anywhere. I still feel, by looking at the nature of the past comments, discussion, and actions, that there is bias in placing more priority in the changing of some artists' numbers more than others. Again, I truly hope I am wrong and that all artists are being approached the same way with no bias. But since you suggested I help, it will be beneficial if, in great detail, there is an explanation or listing of the exact methodology in coming up with these numbers placed on the article page, even if there has to be a separate explanation for each artist, which might be the case.

And kiac, my opinion is just my opinion that I am expressing in the discussion page. Harout and maybe you as well are expressing possible opinions as facts on the article page. The 'new' list would probably fit better in a personal page. A more public domain like this one would be better off with numbers that most sources state, even if they are less accurate. Or maybe you can come up with a wiki article called harout's list of best-selling music artists. And as far as taking action myself, I mentioned it before that since there is no official worldwide tally, no one, including myself, is really in any position to guess or estimate numbers. Again, I suggested using the recording labels' numbers regardless of their accuracies, but I know you would just undo my edits. Vpuliva (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am here just changing numbers as I wish then we have nothing further to discuss, because this discussion that you are carrying on is quite unproductive. It's obvious that you have no practical suggestions to offer. The fact is that it's possible to study the sales and know where the actual sales of an artist stands and selecting the most logical figure claimed by highly regarded sources is the best way to go here. Record labels' claims have no business here on this page as they are willing to claim anything that can help the sales of their artists' upcoming materials.--Harout72 (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow now record company figures have no bearing here because HAROUT72 said so. Absolute craziness. The majority of worldwide sales are NOT reported in any way but from the record companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrparissm (talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 the hypocrisy is really baffling to me. In an earlier post you state: "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.--User:Harout72|Harout72 User talk:Harout72 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)"

I have provided a link to an OFFICIAL statement from Sony Music: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE= MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. --Mrparissm (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between Labels and Major Record Companies. I never said Labels are acceptable. And yes, majority of worldwide sales is being reported. And also many sources copy sales from each other without doing any research themselves. We currently have two highly reliable sources CNN and The Daily Telegraph for Jackson both of which claim 300-350 million, and that's the bracket where his actual sales falls. --Harout72 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony Music is not a Major Record company? Are you kidding me? You specifically state MTV is a reliable source I provided a link where they state Michael Jackson is at 750+ Million records. I hate to break this to you but I would think MTV would know FAR MORE about his sales then YOU would. Stop cherry picking sources. My sources are JUST AS RELIABLE as yours. And there are HUNDREDS that state 750+ Million than your TWO that state 350 Million. His ranking needs to be 750+ Million wether you like it or not. End of story.

harout72 cant argue with this here is proff that michael sold 750 million http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world

--Mrparissm (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mrparissm, if you are going to carry a competent argument please read all I am saying very carefully as I am beginning to think you don't have the ability to do so. First, Sony Music is not a label, it's a major record company. Second, I never suggested that the use of major record companies are unacceptable, but rather I said that Michael's record company has used the 750 million figure as a promotional tool to bring his fame back. And if we are going to have a list of this kind as List of best-selling music artists is, we need to have figures which actually correspond with artists' true sales for the sake of credibility. What good is this page if every single fanatic is going to want to see their favorite artist at the top of the list. That's won't be a credible list, that's a fan page. In addition, don't be so sure that news services or music related establishments don't copy the figures from each other without willing to do their homework. --Harout72 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout: Again, this is a public domain - the best thing to do is to go with what is most public, regardless of the accuracy. So what has a place - only your interpretations? I offered plenty of suggestions that you can easily follow - why can't you put in extensive detail on the article your methodologies for arriving at the numbers? That should not be a problem, unless you have some incredible inconsistencies. Why is it that we have to just trust you? You are not the owner of this page. And look at what your actions are causing - I can only imagine the stress that is building up inside of you - and it's all your fault - you go with what you want and are acting like a virtual dictator of this page preventing anyone else from even editing or discussing. I also suggested you make your own page - why is it that you can not do this simple thing? Let me add - maybe you will see some interest in this - make a page of your own separate from a public domain like this one - when you are satisfied with your results, contact a rock magazine and see if they will publish it. Then later you can even create a separate wiki page mirroring your webpage and link directly to it. In this way, you can act however you please and no one will bother you.

Your actions are highly unprofessional and even corrupt. There are several people and organizations around the world who have been keeping track of sales to their best abilities for several years, if not decades, longer than you. Even they will not take over a public domain - they know there is no official worldwide tally, so no one, including them or you, has any business putting up their figures, regardless of being accurate or not. I kept telling you that regardless of the accuracies, this is a public domain and we must go with what is most public. If you do not like it this way, again you should make your own page. It is ridiculous that you are claiming virtual ownership of this page. Vpuliva (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just curious Vpuliva, do you always advise people while simultaneously using first-grader's sarcasm. Yes you are right, I am not the owner of this page, and I never stated anything of that kind. Why do you only have to trust me? You don't have to, therefore, we've been having this three-day long unproductive discussion. Yes, there are organizations who have been keeping track of sales to their best abilities and that's exactly what I am providing you with above. I never said I have an official tally for Jackson, I am only offering the analysis as to whether the published figures offered by news services is close to the actual sales of the artist. By the way, why don't you make your own page as you advise me to do so, you could create a nice page, I am sure, with lots of artists with healthy looking sales figures, that way you might even get chocolates and flowers from most of the people here as they all like to see their favorite artists with not necessarily logical but blatant figures. --Harout72 (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that some sort of comeback that I am using a first-grader's sarcasm? Yes, you are not the owner of the page, so don't act like you are. You are causing so much trouble - look at all of the discussions going on - and indeed it is because you are acting like the dictator of this page. I know I don't trust you among others and I would therefore like the article reverted back to what it was before, but you're not letting anyone do that. You are not in any position whatsoever to take over a page and put your interpretation of the sales figures. I kept saying it and I'll say it again - this is a public domain - we have to go with what most sources say - not with the 'analysis' of a single person. Why should I go make a page elsewhere - I never wanted to make a page of sales - again all I suggested was we revert back. Because you are acting like a ruler of this page, you should go make a page of your own elsewhere - then no one will disagree with you. I'm trying to help you out, so you can 'get chocolates and flowers' - you don't have first-grade sarcasm? And that says something that even you admit most of the people on this page don't agree with your grand plans. Let the majority decide even if they are not accurate. Again, even you agree - this is not your page. Vpuliva (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop there, both of you; discuss the article, not the person. Go and get yourself a cup of tea, and have a read of Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I'm not looking to blame anyone here, to say anyone has done anything wrong yet, or anything else - I'm just trying to stop things before it gets out of control.  Chzz  ►  07:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Prince has sold over 80 million records

I always recall Prince being listed with 50 million records. But he has seemed to disappear from the list.

He's released over 30 albums in his lifetime. Purple Rain alone is 22x platinum.

If you add the Platinum/Gold/silver certifications listed and cited in his Discography article, you get 82+ million

1979 - Prince - 1.25 Million 1980 - Dirty Mind - 1 Million 1981 - Controversy - 1 million 1982 - 1999 - 6 million 1984 - Purple Rain - 22 million 1985 - Around the world in a day - 3 million 1986 - Parade - 2 million 1987 - Sign O the times - 8 million 1988 - Lovesexy - 2 million 1989 - Batman - 2 million 1990 - Grafitti Bridge - 1.5 million 1991 - Diamonds & Pearls - 9 million 1992 - Love Symbol - 3 million 1993 - The Hits/B-Sides - 1.5 million 1994 - Come - 1 million 1995 - The Gold Experience - 1.5 million 1996 - Emancipation - 3 million 1999 - Rave un2 the joy fantastic - 1 million 2001 - The Very Best of Prince - 2.5 million 2004 - Musicology - 4 million 2006 - 3121 - 2 million 2007 - Planet Earth - 2.8 million 2009 - Lotusflow3r - 1 million

= 82 Million (and thats JUST US, UK, and Canada)

It seems that no reliable source could be found, so it was removed. You're figures are valid - but you need a source claiming the overall figure of 80 million too. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oasis

Apparently now the tally is over 70 million! obviously we can't edit it now but whoever can should make the change ASAP! Hope these are eligible! References: [11] [12] [13] --Tukogbani (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Only the second one of all three sources are weakly reliable which still doesn't qualify for this page and the other two are not reliable whatsoever.--Harout72 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Hi Michael Jackson is listed at 300+ Million records when in actuality he is at 750+ Million records sold. So he should be in the group with The Beatles and Elvis. Here's a link to my source: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

go here for sales http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.34.136 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone could correct this that would be great, I'm a new member and can't correct semi-protected pages. Thanks!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrparissm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the editsemiprotected template. Please continue to participate in the above discussion with kiac and reach consensus. tedder (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing about Jackson's current 350 million figure that needs to be corrected. This is what his actual sales looks like and we have two very reliable sources at the moment, CNN and The Daily Telegraph (both of which support the 300-350 million figure) none of which is any less reliable than the sources the 750 million figure could be supported by .--Harout72 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/

The Moody Blues

Have The Moody Blues sold over 50 million copies of their albums? I did not know for sure so I didn't want to add that information until someone could confirm it. If anyone can confirm it then they ought to be added to the list. :- ) Thanks a bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JarOfBuckeyes (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look for this last night, there was a few different claims, but couldn't really find anything definite. I'm guessing you're getting this from their Wikipedia page, don't believe it on merit, it's probably been edited 5 times since the original poster found it in a source (which is no longer there). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A request was made to edit this article, changing the figures for Michael Jackson to 750m. The sources were what we would normally consider reliable sources. I see the discussion above, but I see no reason why this information should not be added to the article.

It is also worth noting that out featured article Michael Jackson asserts the figure of 750m - and that article has undergone considerable scrutiny.

The amendment was reverted with this edit.

Thus, we need to discuss it, and try to reach a consensus.

Please say below whether or not you think that this edit should be made, giving brief reasons.

Thanks.  Chzz  ►  20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

here is proff that michael sold 750 million http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwordpass (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to know where Jackson's actual sales stands one must study his sales through the help of certifications, especially those that Jackson has gathered in larger music markets. And that's how I came to the conclusion that the 750 million figure was simply a promotional/marketing tool that Jackson's record company used a couple of years ago to bring his fame back to the level where it was before mid 90s.

Let's look at some numbers together.

• Jackson's total US sales stands at about 77 million according to his US certifications. This figure; however, needs to be inflated by 10% to include those records which have not reached a certification level, so his actual US sales should be about 85-90 million.
• Canadian sales is just 4.5 million according his certifications and again let's add the 10% to cover those records which have not reached a certification level, and we are looking at about 5 million in Canada.
• German sales stands at 10.3 million with the 10% it's 11.3 million.
• In France, he's looking at about 5.3 million, and with the 10% it's about 5.8 million.
• In Switzerland, his sales from '89-09 stand just around the corner of 900,000, with the 10% , it's about 1 million.
• In The Netherlands, his figure's 1.5 million plus the 10% 1.7 million give or take.
• In Australia, he's looking at about 4.3 million (I used three different pages to calculate the Australian figures 1, 2, 3), and the 10%, and it's just about 4.8 million.
• In Sweden, from '87-'08 he has sold only about 400,000 records, and with the usual 10%, we'll have 450,000 units.
• UK's database is currently under construction, however, I've used UK's database before to look at Jackson's sales and it's just about 15 million.
• In the entire European Continent, Jackson from '96-'09 has sold only 11 million albums according to the Europe's certifications, and it'll be not more than 12-13 million with the 10% addition.

As you may notice, we don't have to go over the sales each country in the world has recorded as most countries including the 95% of the Asian and South/Central American countries have very small music markets (in fact so small that IFPI doesn't have a listing for most of them) , the combination all of which may just come close to the size of three larger European markets (German, UK, French) or in the best case scenario, they might come close to the size of US market. The only important market in Asia Pacific is the Japanese market which, unfortunately, does not offer a searchable database for Certifications at the moment, but I would assume that Jackson's total sales there is not going to surpass the 10-15 million boarder. So my conclusion is that the 750 million for Jackson is at least 100% inflated (350 million X 100%=700 million). Consequently, the 350 million figure published by CNN [14] or 300 million published by The Daily Telegraph [15] are as logical as it may ever get for Jackson at the moment. I hope what I covered here is satisfactory as far as his sales goes.--Harout72 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

you are wrong beaucse you are saying cnn is a more relabile source than michael jackson offical site or sony records

please read the whole article http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.34.136 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember that first party sources are not accepted, SONY/BMG executives on occasion have stated that Elvis has sold 2.5 billion records worldwide. The Michael Jackson official website cannot be used a source, neither can the Elvis website or The Beatles website. They perhaps maybe used as secondary sources to support indepedent statements provided by other trustworthy sources. This has been mentioned before, read before posting irrelevant links. JFonseka (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh I've been through this over and over again. Harout72 here is completely power hungry. If a news article does not go with his pre-concieved bias he won't use them.

Sony's Official Statement about Michael Jackson's Death and his sales are here: http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

Official Sony Press Release about his "This is it" movie coming out in October: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

And finally MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million and they cite several sources: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

3 VERY reliable sources. And these are the most recent. I would rather go with verifiable and reliable sources that KNOW his totals rather than some internet poster trying to guess at them. His total needs to be updated. It's been listed at 750 Million for like 2 years now. And Harout72 felt fit to change it with ABOSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. What started all this is Harout72 changed MJ's total a few days ago to 350+ Million. Someone needs to change him back to 750+ Million.

--Mrparissm (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Look Harout72 this is not "Harout72's List of Best Selling artists". SONY would know better than ANYONE how many Records Michael Jackson has sold worldwide. This list should be comprised of OFFICIAL statements. Bottom Line. Whether you agree with the figures or not is irrelevant because you don't have first hand knowledge of his sales and Sony does. Hist total needs to be changed to 750+ Million.

--Mrparissm (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony's executives release varying statements over the years when it comes to the sales of Elvis and Michael Jackson, constantly inflating the numbers. Whereas EMI, the group that handles The Beatles records have consistently understated The Beatles sales to the point that they have been sued for royalty amounts not paid. This is one of the many reasons that we cannot use the record companies themselves as they may not give true statements. As Harout has said, and also provided evidence there is no way the sales can add up to 750 million. JFonseka (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please save your energy as I have seen outrageously inflated figures coming from reliable sources that I still can't believe. If I don't try as hard as I am trying to keep this page straight, this page will be filled with inflated figures within a period of one week and eventually be worthless to keep. Is this what we are trying to make out of this list? I am not. I believe the figure of 350 million is a plausible achievement and to be very honest with you, I really don't see how having the 750 million is going to make things better or more credible. --Harout72 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes the list more credible because that is what EVERYONE else is reporting. What does it look like when everyone else is reporting 750 Million yet you want to change it to whatever you see fit? You are now calling Sony Music liars? That makes this list uncredible. The OFFICIAL numbers are what should be used. Michael Jackson was and still is a HUGE international star. He is in the guiness book of world records as the most successful entertainer. He broke records for the largest tour TWICE. First with his Bad tour and then again with his HIStory tour (which didn't even come to the U.S. and he still broke records with it!) There is no way you could go to those websites and tally up his total sales from the 80s to now. You have OFFICIAL number from the horses mouth! That is what needs to be used. And THAT is what would make this list credible!

--Mrparissm (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mrparissm, please understand. There are no official numbers when it sometimes comes to promotions and marketing, that's why record companies hand pick their people, who regardless of the situation are able to market their artists in any way that might help the artists' sales. Understand that I have absolutely nothing to gain or lose by 350 million or 750 million, I am simply trying my best to keep the list credible. I have put in hours and hours of work to come to this conclusion, I understand that you and other fans may be disappointed with the result I have come up with, but believe me, 350m is the maximum that I see for him. I am sure we will soon have some more figures popping up as news services will want to update their figures. And yes, you are right, he is an international star and the 350 million in sales speaks for itself. --Harout72 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 here's the flaw in your logic. In the "elvis and beatles sales are inflated too" conversation above between you and Vpuliva, you said you've counted the Beatles sales and they are at 500 Million. That is HALF of what the reported figure is but yet you haven't changed their sales numbers on the list. So why is that? That's because the OFFICIAL numbers are 1 Billion + sales. This list is not about what YOU think, it's about the most reliable sources on the total sales numbers. These record companies know their artists sales better than anyone else. It's laughable that you think you have the power or knowledge to dispute them. I appreciate your efforts in this list but you are COMPLETELY WRONG if you feel you can go agaisnt official numbers from major record companies. You are going down a very slippery slope. None of the sales in the top 20 can be 100% verified by chart tracking. Just as your Beatles numbers only show 500 Million and the official number is 1 Billion. You should RESPECT the official figure for Michael Jackson's numbers just like you respect the official number for The Beatles and Elvis. You are seriously hurting the credibility of this list by cherry picking sources and going against official numbers from Sony themselves. It doesn't get any more clear than that. --Mrparissm (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that The Beatles are going to stay where they currently are on the list? I am going to study the sales of Elvis too, if Elvis' actual sales doesn't come close to 1 billion as the sales of The Beatles shows it doesn't, then the section of "500-1 billion" will be removed altogether, as I will place them both within a new section "500 million or more records". By the way, did you even look at Jackson's sales that I have provided above? Numbers don't lie. Where do you think he might have sold as many as 750 million records? I have covered all the major economically well developed territories where the sales are the strongest. --Harout72 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. There is NO WAY that you are anyone here can verify these numbers but the record companies themselves! A lot of times record companies do NOT recertify their totals on these charts especially for older artists and albums. Secondly those sales charts do not 100% represent his international sales. I understand that you are skeptical which is fine. But you can NOT rewrite his total sales in history because you want to. It baffles me that you somehow view this as fair. It's not. You HAVE to use the most credible and knowledgable sources. And in this case it is SONY MUSIC, NOT what you yourself believes. Do you understand what a slippery slope you are going down? This is not "Harout72's list of top selling artists." The majority of press releases and official statements from Sony, MTV and other trusted sources state 750+ Million.

--Mrparissm (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also support the semi-protection to keep the figures at 750 million. While I may not agree with the figure myself, there are FAR more sources and more reputable sources that go along with that figure than with the self-proclaimed page ruler's figure. As this is a public domain, the figure that has the most sources should be the one to put up on the article page. I also support putting back up the other artists that were kicked off and/or downgraded regardless of what the 'owner' or even I think of those previously posted figures. No single person should be ruling over this page - if they don't like it that way, they should go make their own personal page elsewhere. Vpuliva (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing the point? I wasn't aware you were making one, Mrparissm. First of all, I am not using any charts as you may call it, they are databases. Second of all, it's obvious that you haven't even glanced at what I've written above as you state above :Secondly those sales charts do not 100% represent his international sales. Where do you think the most trusted sources including CNN here get their figures from? Either the record companies or they often have people who study sales using the same pattern as I used above. And sometimes they don't do neither as they simply copy figures from each other hoping that the original publisher has done its homework, and those are the sources that you've been drawn to. I have to tell you, I am beginning to get the feeling that this discussion is going to turn into a long and unproductive one. So why not we simply stop here since it's clear that I am never going to convince you and it's clear that you will never be able to see what I'm driving at as there is only one thing in your mind and that's seeing your favorite artist at the top of the list.--Harout72 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment At the beginning of this discussion, I asked for brief, policy-based reasoning. Wikipedia is not actually interested in the truth, just what is verifiable. If multiple reliable sources state the figure of 750m, and there are few if any sources that dispute the figure, then we are in no position to disagree with them. Adding up figures ourselves is original research.

I'm hoping that we can reach some form of consensus here; to that end, it would be most useful if people could briefly state whether they approve or disapprove of the suggested edit, with brief, policy-based reasoning. The issue at hand is this specific one edit; discussions about other edits (e.g. Beatles, Elvis) should be in their own section.

Let's all remember to assume good faith - we are all trying to make Wikipedia a bit better, so there is no point in climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.  Chzz  ►  05:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Chzz I believe you have made some errors, adding up figures is not original research, original research is getting those figures in the first place. The addition of figures came about due to a dispute, I am also interested in many of the sources, a quick google search indicates the most credible source for this figure is mtv, with the rest tending to be small-time online newspapers. CNN however and the Daily Telegraph are two credible and large sources of news that have not reported anything close to 750 million, it is by the standard of credibility, with secondary evidence of sales additions, and past reports of a few years ago citing less than 400 million sales have we come to the conclusion of 350 million sales, it is cumulative evidence supported primarily by two major news outlets, and evidence collated from querying official sales databases. Accusing Harout of "original research" for adding numbers is laughable. The primary evidence, and the most credible evidence given remains CNN and The Daily Telegraph. JFonseka (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The figure for Jackson's numbers should be reverted as per Chzz's explanation about verifiabliity over truth. In a page like this the correct figure to go with is the highest one regularly cited by reliable sources. I personally think that the 750mil figure is most likely untrue and inflated, however I think most all other artists cited on this list suffer from this as well; The notion that the Beatles or Elvis sold over a billion records is most certainly ludicrous - that number corresponds to about 1 person in 7 on the planet earth having a Beatles record (including the developing world). However I support those numbers being on this list as they are verifiable in being widely published by reliable sources - whether or not those figures stand up to intensive scrutiny is beyond the scope of wikipedia. We should not forget that the standard of wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. In all this discussion to pinpoint the actual record sales (compiling data from different regions, making lists, scrutinizing record keeping procedures of times past) we invariably perform original research which is strictly forbidden. If we were to scrutinize the figures of most any other artist on this list we would certainly find the figures to be greatly or even radically inflated - so to apply this process only to select musicians makes the measuring stick we use uneven. The only way to maintain an even measuring stick for all artists is to apply the largest number regularly cited by reliable sources - and fortunately this measuring stick is also the one most in-line with wikipeda policy. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

---

That is a mistake Solid State, and contrary to common sense. If a few years ago if he was being cited at around 300 - 400 million records sold and then last year 750 million there is something highly questionable. Whether or not Elvis and The Beatles have sold 1 billion is being investigation. The number does not necessarily correspond to 1 out of 7 people owning a Beatles record since that would assume that everyone who has bought a Beatles record has only one bought one record, furthermore considering much of the older artists entire catalogue has switched over from various forms of Vinyls to Cassettes and CD's it's worth taking into note. There is nothing to suggest The Beatles haven't sold well in the developing world, if anything, lack of data perhaps exists for sales in the developing world. This does not imply lack of sales, a misguided conclusion. You have reverted harouts edits under the guise that no original research is allowed, however his research consists of collecting data from sources, not doing the actual research, therefore you have incorrectly reverted his edits.

As for MJ's 750 million records sold worldwide, he is listed at around 61.5 million currently on the RIAA database in the USA. Using your logic about the dubious nature of The Beatles having sold in the developing world, it doesn't stand to reason that Michael Jackson's remaining 650+ million sales occurred in the rest of the world. Do not misuse the system citing wikipedia standards incorrectly. JFonseka (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jfonseka you are the one making the mistake. The consensus here (the majority of opinions) agree that we should go with the most cited number. That is 750+ Million.

--Mrparissm (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked it wasn't the majority opinion that decided whether something was correct or incorrect, but evidence. Harout has given plenty of evidence pulled out from the actual sales databases of various countries worldwide along with credible sources, CNN and DT confirming that it's in the 350 million mark. Given that the 750 million figure only came about recently and it was a jump of about 400 - 450 million records from a few years ago (a ridiculous claim), it should be dismissed. Most of the earlier sources for the 750 million figure were not entirely credible either, with plenty of people citing the Michael Jackson website, fan sites, unknown music websites and other dubious websites. CNN is far more credible, and so are the sales databases of the various countries that Harout has pointed out, however it seems none of you have bothered to look at it. The consensus has never been used to decide whether someone is right or wrong, especially when right or wrong can be decided by looking at the evidence, that is common sense, so please don't give me a definition of consensus. JFonseka (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about what's right and wrong this about following Wikipedia's policies as laid out by Chzz. There are several CNN articles that cite the 750 Million number aswell. You can add up numbers from databases all day long those do NOT count as official numbers because they do not account for all of his sales and a lot have not been recertified. The record companies are the only ones that know their artists sales first hand. Who are you to dispute with them? This is absolutely ridiculous. --Mrparissm (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My point in mentioning the Beatles and Elvis was no to indicate that their numbers need to change - indeed I support those numbers on the grounds of verifiability, regardless of whether the information is true. My reverting of Harout's edits on grounds of WP:OR is not a "guise" of any sorts, and I am insulted by this accusation - I was simply trying to make this page conform to Wikipedia policy. Compiling data from different sources, making assumptions to fill in the gaps and analyzing the composite most certainly constitutes original research. The sort of research Harout has performed does defy WP:OR policy as, to quote from the policy, "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" is forbidden. I personally think that the 750mil figure for Jackson is far from true but once again it is widely verifiable from numerous reliable sources. The policy of using of the highest verifiable reliably sourced figure is used on numerous other "highest selling" list throughout wikipedia including List of best-selling albums worldwide. It is the only method consistent with wikipedia policy as editors cant discredit information provided by reliable sources on the grounds that it varies from their own original research. This whole article is chuck full of inaccurate, untrue, yet verifiable numbers to which the page's lead makes explicit note of - to start changing them to reflect the truth as derived from original research is not consistent with wikipedia policy. Solid State Survivor (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sold State, please take a look at the last section of this discussion page, the new section I just added. JFonseka (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to JFonseka: Both CNN and The Daily Telegraph have reported the figure of 750m.

"Jackson is estimated to have sold more than 750 million albums in total." - CNN

"Jackson has sold more 750 million albums" - The Daily Telegraph

In my opinion, it is perfectly justifiable that someone does further research into reliable sources to support other conflicting reliable sources. Harout never even added the overall total up - because it is not an overall total, yes that's true, it is inconclusive. But it is conclusive in stating that if these dozen or so sales tracking publications (the primary sources, where news services should be getting their figures from) say that it is clearly not even possible that these inflated figures are correct. It is just ignorant to ignore the fact that a dozen of the biggest music markets on this earth would accumulate less than a quarter of the total sales. Using verifiability in this case is not working for me, the mere fact that CNN and The Daily Telegraph claim the figure is perfectly verifiable, because there is conflicting claims by reliable sources, furhter research is required. OR would only be relevant if we were adding those numerous sources into the article, remember this is a talk page based on consensus.

While I'm on the topic of consensus, Mrparissm you should probably give this a read: WP:Consensus. Conensus is not 'decided' by majority vote, but by legitamacy of an argument and policies. Also, repeating someone else's point is not going to get you the results you desire. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So TDT and CNN report 750, not 350? I've gone through this whole discussion assuming the other way around. So do any sources report the overall figure of somewhere between 300-400 million? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout, I understand what you say completely! Those numbers probably are inflated but look for yourself: There are 3 different sources reporting that MJs sales are 750 million. Only two have reported that it is 300 million and 350 million; and these two have also stated the number to be 750 million. Therefore, it is much more reliable to say that it is 750 million, regardless of the truth it comes from the most sources and some very reliable sources, as are MTV, CNN, Daily Telegraph, Sony itself, etc. We understand that you may be right on the numbers and that the changes aren't done because of consensus but it is not logical that you leave it at 350 million... Be reasonable. Follow the Wikipedia rules and changes... If sufficient evidence is later found that supports the change BACK to 350 million we will discuss it then, but most of the evidence does lead to 750 million and we must base this page on that, the evidence.

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

alexdow93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdow93 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

CNN reporting the 750 million in March, 2009 and reporting 350 million in June, 2009 here [16] is already a reason enough to believe that all major news services do sometimes copy these figures from each other without doing the research themselves. Therefore, we also have a reason to believe that all of those 750 million figures that the MJ fans seem quite fond of have popped-up to the surface of the earth through putting no effort into looking/counting Jackson's true sales figures. You guys seem quite excited about the 750 million, even though, I see some of you admit that it is an inflated figure. So I suggest, we all patiently wait, because the major news services are very soon going publish articles on Jackson due to his strong recent record sales, and within I am sure they will have the new figures.--Harout72 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not making any sense at all. You can't lump every single source together and say they must have copied from each other. That is beyond the scope of you or Wikipedia to proclaim! This is so exasperating. Can no one else see the hipcrosy is all of this? Michael Jackson has passed away and you guys are singling him out for inflated sales numbers when your ENTIRE LIST IS FULL OF THEM! If you propose that we wait for more news reports than that means Michael Jackson's numbers should be changed BACK TO 750+ Million. Which is what it has been for the past 2 years until YOU changed it a couple days ago! That is the only fair thing to do as that is the most widely reported figure! --Mrparissm (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Jackson vs. The Beatles, Elvis, ABBA, Mouskouri

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Harout72, first of all, FYI, only in US according to Nielsen Soundscan (http://www.billboard.com/column/dailynoise/michael-jackson-dave-grohl-supergroup-kristina-1004000617.story#/column/dailynoise/michael-jackson-dave-grohl-supergroup-kristina-1004000617.story) Michael Jackson sold 3,787,000 albums and 7,578,000 tracks in first 5 1/2 weeks after his dead. That is total 11.3 millions only in US and Michael Jackson is still #1 almost everywhere around the world.... So do you know how many records did he sold since 25.06.? FYI last month Michael Jackson has became most certified artist in Australian history, in Germany he became first artist ever with 3 albums with at least 2 million pieces sold etc. etc. In last 7 weeks he broke countless charts and sales' records around the world. If you use certification as a main source who is the best selling artist in the world you will see that Michael Jackson has much bigger certification total around the world than Elvis (excluding US where Elvis is undoubtly #1 solo artist) or ABBA or Nana Mouskouri etc... Of course Elvis is under-certified in many countries but Michael Jackson is also, for example MJ's Thriller is certified in Canada for 2 million vinyls sold in april 1984. That was 25 years ago. In that certification there is no CD's etc. You did Michael Jackson's sales breakdown (btw with wrong numbers because for example you don't count singles in UK etc. and with very funny 10% add lol) and for Elvis or The Beatles or ABBA or Nana Mouskouri you wouldn't do the same, using same method and sources! Hmmmm, why? The World Music Awards annually honors recording artists based on worldwide sales figures provided by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and according to World Music Awards Michael Jackson is the best-selling male recording-artist of all time. On your Harout72's completely incorrect list of best-selling music artists, Michael Jackson is probably only artist with so-so correct figure because MJ as a solo artists really sold at least 350+ million records (albums+singles) which can be tracked with certifications and end-years charts around the world but only, I repeat only prior to his dead and with great sale after his dead you must add (only for now) another 25 million to that 350 million number. But at the end of day your list is completely useless because as I said before for The Beatles and Elvis and ABBA and Nana Mouskouri etc. you use label's inflated numbers and the most funny part is that those numbers are inflated much more than Jackson's 750 million number (which included The Jackson 5/The Jacksons sales also). I am 100% sure that you don't like Michael Jackson and that is the only reason why he became your first and (for now) only big victim on this list (forget Crosby). I would really like to see your ABBA and Mouskouri and Elvis and The Beatles sales breakdown using the same methodology as in Michael Jackson's case. But then there is no ABBA & Mouskouri in 300 million category and Elvis' total would be slightly above Jackson's total thanks to better singles sale. The Beatles are undoubtly #1. BTW if you check Madonna's certification around the world you will see that she sold around 300 million records and you have wrong 200 million number. Regarding your CNN source for Jackson with 350 million figure I can give you another 10+ CNN sources with 750 million figure so your source is completely useless/pointless. Regards. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd support my arguments with sources. Also, do not preach me about Jackson's sales as I have a huge list going on above. And the 2 million in Canadian album sales on Thriller should be some kind of an evidence that he's sold 750 million records worldwide? I have not counted the singles for UK? Why don't you go back to my writing and look at it more closely this time around as I have not mentioned anything of that kind. Perhaps, for you UK and the entire European continent are the same as the albums sales are for the latter. Before you get to the Beatles and Elvis read all of the discussions.--Harout72 (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that Michael Jackson sold 750 million so why don't you go back to my writing and look at it more closely this time. That was your qoute to me btw! I said that 350 million is pretty correct number. I used MJ's Thriller certification in Canada only as example that Michael Jackson is like Elvis under certified in many countries around the world and that was in context of your future Elvis' sale anaylise using certification as a main source just like in MJ's case + 10% add of course. :) I know that you used certification numbers in MJ's case just to point out that he didn't sold 750 million and my remark regarding not counting singles in UK and wrong, funny 10% add was again in context of future Elvis' sale anaylise using certification because Elvis was primarly singles' artist and to point out that Michael Jackson also has big singles sales but anyway you can forget about that remark, it was completely unnecassary in the context of my main objection. About sources, I have official independant sources to support my arguments regarding Michael Jackson worldwide sale since 25.06.2009. (official chart sales numbers around the world), also for Madonna's 300 million figure etc. Also I repeat I would really like to see YOUR ABBA and Mouskouri and Elvis and The Beatles sales breakdown using the same methodology as in Michael Jackson's case... but after reading all your responses on this subject I really doubt that I (we) will see that. The point is that this list with Michael at 350 million is unfair because he is ONLY big artist with checked/corrected sale number. All other big artists on this list (The Beatles, Elvis, ABBA, Mouskouri) have label's inflated numbers and at the end of day that is completely unfair. Why only Michael Jackson? Why now? Why didn't you checked The Beatles' or Elvis' numbers FIRST or why don't you check all big acts and then do update. Great, old Greek sophist said "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." He was right! Regards!--Z.K. HAL (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

-- ZK Hal, why should we listen to anything you say in regards to your research when your statements like "Elvis is undoubtedly #1 in the USA" is contrary to what the RIAA has posted? Elvis is actually no.2 as a solo artist, behind Garth Brooks, though it is probably true in reality that Elvis is no.1 since a lot of sales data for him is missing, we must stick to the certifications, not what could have been. I fail to see how 2 million vinyls sold in Canada in 1984 contribute to verifying this mammoth total of 750 million, considering that the sales drop in an exponential form over time. Furthermore it was reported that MJ's sales in one week since his death was higher than his sales for the last 11 years, I can pull out this source if you wish, but since this was on the news I'm hoping you had seen it. It's all well to accuse others of not liking MJ when you don't see the statistics you want to see up there. I am not quite sure where you are going with the Elvis is under-certified therefore MJ is also under-certified nonsense. Elvis' under-certifications are a result of RCA Victor bungling and losing sales data, which doesn't apply to MJ as he was not managed by them and I haven't seen any news or any claims that MJ has been under certified from any kind of reputable source, including any claims by SONY themselves.

Sony and RCA Victor have however mentioned that some of Elvis' sales data is missing. I am from Australia, and you are right that he did break some Chart records here, however Australia's population is also not big, and even gaining multi-platinum status here with a few albums is still not the same as the USA. The records he holds here are in terms of the biggest come-backs to the charts, and a record for having 3 albums in the top 3 spots, I fail to see how this justifies 750 million album sales though? Last I recall the global sales of him since his death were around 16 million. His death has been one of the biggest rises in his album sales since the late 80's, and now that sales spike has rapidly declined again. I fail to see any logical conclusion that this 16 million sales now definitely means he is at the 750 million mark.

The world music awards may have stated that Jackson is the highest seller worldwide, however many other sources report contrary claims, including Sony (which holds the catalog for both Elvis and Jackson) where they actually have the sales data since they do the shipping and have claimed Elvis is the highest. We also have Rolling Stone reporting that Elvis is unparalleled in sales and also as a solo artist, including the american government website stating in an article on Elvis that he has sold 1 billion. So if anything all this suggests that sources cannot always be taken as true, Harout's method is a lot more logical, if a few years ago everyone was agreeing his sales were 300 million, it doesn't stand to reason that it's jumped up by 450 million in a few years in a period where he hasn't even been active. Can I kindly see the other 10 sources by CNN that you have that cite him at 750 million? JFonseka (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

JFoneska of course Garth Brooks is at 128 million and Elvis is at 120 million but first of all, to get RIAA certification you must request for it and pay for it. So, many artists are under certified because their label's don't bother with applying and paying for certification. Also, unfortunately for Elvis minimum number for gold certification is 500,000 for gold and 1,000,000 for platinum and Elvis has many singles and albums under 500k or beetween 500k and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 etc. and that plus sales cannot be represented in RIAA numbers. In Garth Brooks' case that not-counted number is rarther small because he only has few albums and no singles. So Elvis is undoubtedly #1 in the USA. Q.E.D. Also certification is not only official number that we have today, there is also for example in US Nielsen Soundscan sales so we have those numbers and for example Michael Jackson has sold since his dead according to Soundscan Nielsen 11.3 million albums+tracks in first 5.5 weeks. There is source link in my first post and all those numbers are not counted in RIAA sales. BTW MJ's Number Ones is certified 1×platinum in US and official Soundscan number for that album is 3.1+ million... Same goes for many other albums including Thriller, now 28×platinum and very soon 30×platinum for sure. Anyway in next few months MJ will get 10+ million more certification if Sony apply for it. You'll see! Regarding "MJ's sales in one week since his death was higher than his sales for the last 11 years" -> that was only about Amazon sales. Do you need source links about that? Also do you know that Jackson's broke countless sales records on Amazon (on amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.fr, amazon.de, and even in amazon.co.jp). Do you also know that MJ was #1 on comprehensive Billboard chart in US last 6 of 7 weeks. Tommorow he we'll be again #1 with Number Ones, #3 with Essential and #4 with Thriller + 6 more albums in Top 50. BTW I am talking about Billboard comprehensive chart that includes all albums in US not Billboard 200 which includes only new albums. About MJ in Australia you have only mentioned few of his new records but there are many more unprecedent records... I can pull out sources if you wish! :) I again repeat I have never said that MJ sold 750 million. I said twice that 350+ million is pretty correct number according to certifications and many (end-year) charts with sales numbers around the world. FYI among others I am charts collector for more than 20 years. Canada was just an example that Jackson is way undercertified around the world (plus I used that for Elvis comparasion blablabla)... Same goes for his other albums in Canada, also as I mentioned before you can check Soundscan numbers in US for his albums like Bad, Off The Wall, Thriller, Essential etc. and then check his certification dates and in RIAA certification and also there is no MJ solo sales while he was in Motown. In RIAA there is no sales numbers for his many top-ten and even #1 singles because of the same reason like in Elvis case. You said that Jackson sold 16 million records since 25.06.?! Wow, OK please check total UK albums+singles sales only in UK, France and US and you will be surprised with number! Cheers! Regarding Elvis sales I repeat I can use SAME Harout's method to show you that Elvis 1 billion figure is completely fake. But of course you have Rolling Stone number or countless other "reliable" sources citing same inflated label's number for Elvis... and what about ABBA 370 million number LOL or Mouskouri 300 million LOL. Where? Can you show me using chart history around the world + certifications, logical, common sense proof for that inflated numbers?! For you Rolling Stone or any other source with 1 billion is great proof that Elvis sold 1 billion but when someone use same quality sources for also inflated 750 million MJ's figure that is illogical, against common sense, false, blabla.... Double standards?! (Oh, I forgot MJ was black.) At the end FYI, according to Nielsen Soundscan Elvis sold 30+ million records from 1991-2009. Regarding Elvis' sale he was big in '50s but if you look Billboard's charts (do you need sources?) you will see that after 1962 he wasn't so big in terms of number of successful hits and albums and that of course means lower sales. After 1962 'till death 1977 Elvis had only 8 top 10 singles and only 1 #1 on Billboard. You can make deatailed analyse using Billboard's charts from 1963-1978 and you will see that in that period he wasn't so big. Same goes for the rest of the world (you can check lists around the world).

For example, 5 web sources that Michael Jackson sold 700-750 million records by CNN: 1. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/ 2. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/13/michael.jackson.concerts.tickets/index.html 3. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/smith.jackson.appreciation/ 4. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ 5. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.world/index.html ...

Also please check this picture... http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg So according to Guinness Michael Jackson is first entertainer to have officially ratified sales of more than 100 million albums outside the USA. That is the fact and if you check certifications around the world (excluding US and UK) you will se that MJ was way ahead Elvis, but according to RIAA Elvis sold 120 million in US so to get 1 billion figure Elvis sold another 880 million plus/minus outside of US. LOL Please can you tell me where? Anyway, this Wikipidia list of best-selling music artists with INFLATED numbers for Elvis, The Beatles, ABBA, Mouskouri etc. and ONLY for Michael Jackson checked/corrected sale figure is a joke. I can't prove but I suspect racial issue here (?!) because for Michael Jackson you are using different standard then for Elvis, The Beatles, ABBA and Mouskouri. He is only black arist among them and ONLY with checked/corrected figure. NOT FAIR!!! Double standards. Q.E.D.

--Z.K. HAL (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not something that should be taken personally, but i have done a little breakdown on your first post Z.K. HAL - just so you realize how obsurd your claims sound. 20 citation needed tags in only a couple of paragraphs, that's how many unsubstantiated statements you made. Bolded my ad libbing to stand out, not to indicate agression, just in case that is accidently implied. Here's the link Citation needed. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kiac I can provide all citation and then what? I will lose time and this list will remain the same! I don't see the point in that but anyway... BTW everything I wrote you can check by yourself for example: 1) For Michael being most certified artist is Australia you must go through all ARIA certification database (on web http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations.htm for free you can only check ALL certification from 1997-2009. Anyway it is a hard work to collect all that triva facts but... At the end you will find out that MJ has 55×platinum + 3×gold awards for now... He is #1. Contact ARIA for independant official confirmation! :) 2) If you want 25 years old Thriller 2 million winyl certification go to http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php and type Michael Jackson and album Thriller ... 3) To check that Michael Jackson is still #1 almost everywhere around the world go to: USA: http://www.billboardmagazine.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=Billboard+Comprehensive+Albums UK: http://uk.launch.yahoo.com/c/uk/album_charts.html Germany: http://www.musicload.de/musicloadcharts chooes alben Australia: http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1A50 Italia: http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_artisti.php Spain: http://www.afyve.com/espanol.html Dutch: http://www.dutchcharts.nl/weekchart.asp?cat=a (MJ is #2, #4, #7) Japan: http://www.billboard.com/charts/japan-albums#/charts/japan-albums (MJ is #2) Europe: http://www.billboard.com/charts/european-albums#/charts/european-albums (MJ is #1, #2, #4, #7, #9, #10) etc. etc. You can check lists all around the world, from South America, New Zealand, Ireland etc. etc. and everywhere is the same MJ is still on the top or in the worst case with few albums in top 10. 4) To see that Michael Jackson has much bigger certification total around the world than Elvis (excluding US), ABBA or Mouskouri go to official sites around the Europe and world and check by yourself. You have few links on this page posted by Harout72. 5) In 2000 Michael Jackson got Best Selling Pop Male Artist of the Millennium award at the World Music Award http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/RTV/2000/05/12/005120036/?v=0&a=1 or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q05eanhuEik OK he is the best pop selling artist so Elvis is probably excluded as rock artist... 6) For Michael Jackson 350 million figure I must give you hundreds of citation... excuse me I am not that stupid... :) BTW you can find hundreds of inflated 750 million figure citation for MJ from various TV stations, newspapers and you don't believe in that but you believe that Elvis sold 1 billion or ABBA 370 or Mouskouri 300? Why? 7) For countless MJ's charts and sales' records after his dead around the world I can put hundreds links but really what is the point? I will prove what? You didn't prove that Elvis sold 1 billion, you didn't prove that ABBA sold 370, you didn't prove that Mouskouri sold 300 million so... You have few quotes about those sales and those citations are reliable equally as Michael Jackson's 750 million citations and I repeat Michael Jackson is only checked/corrected. Why?--Z.K. HAL (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of making you actually source them. But thank you for showing your legitamacy. In the future it's best that you include these references (or at least some) in your post, if you're going to state 'facts'. Please remember that each artist stands out individually and should not necessarily be compared to others, they're completely separate - please keep this in mind, you seem to be thinking 'if Elvis is here why can't Michael be?' - it doesn't work that way. It's a progressive process and pushing one thing's credibility down to raise another's is not helping the entire page. Oh and... no "I" did not have much at all to do with the article's figures - stop trying to creat an enemy of me, please. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page requires a greater degree of protection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I took a look at some of the sources for the claims of Michael Jackson's 750 million figures, given by the people here. And I have come to the conclusion that many people propagating these claims on wikipedia, and also the people who are constantly reverting back to the old edits are not actually reading anything. Someone has posted this link as one of the sources, it's by the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

Supposedly this is a citation of Michael Jackson's 750 million sales figure, however reading the article it's clearly an article that contests the 750 million sold, and it contests it strongly. This same wall street Journal cites two independent researches claiming Michael Jackson's sales figures of 132 million to 202 million worldwide (not taking into account the digital downloads and sales before his death)

This page is definitely being vandalized if it comes to the point where people are claiming artists have sold a certain amount but citing evidence that is refuting the claims the person citing the source is making! This is ridiculous and a shame to anyone contributing this nonsense as it indicates people are not actually reading anything, this goes to people constantly reverting the edits. So now we have 2 sources indicating MJ's sales of 750 million, the other source given was a Sony press report, the interesting thing is that the Wall Street Journal mentions that Sony has refused to give details on the sales, whereas the press report gives an opinion of a Sony executive in memoriam. What are we to believe? Sony as a whole refusing sales data at the time of the WSJ publishing on the 15th of July, and a remark (not an official statement) by a Sony executive on the 26th of June stating 750 million. This is highly questionable and now puts this second source into question.

http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson

The third source given was MTV, so now the question remains, which is more credible, CNN and The Daily Telegraph or an editorial done for MTV. I am not contesting MTV's credibility here, but considering CNN is a primary news sources and highly reputable, along with the Daily Telegraph, I cannot see any reason why the reportings of an entertainment channel has to be given precedence over CNN and The Daily Telegraph. And I cannot see any reason why Chzz suggestions has to be put into effect given now that the only credible source of information remaining is MTV, Sony's statements have been contradictory and vague if one of their executives has to state the propagated 750 million sales, and then refuse sales data to the Wall Street Journal, thus taking it out as a serious contender for verifiable or reputable evidence such as Chzz asks for. This page definitely needs serious protection, it is not only been needlessly edited and re-edited, but people are giving evidence refuting their own claims! It's a joke. JFonseka (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh god get over yourself man. That WSJ article only states what MIGHT be the case. And they actually don't dispute the figure at all they say they think it includes his singles as well as his albums. Remember we are talking about RECORDS sold, not ALBUMS sold, which can include Singles. They also state that Beatles' figure is probably off. Regardless of all this they still don't have any evidence one way or another though so that article is irrelvent. And the reason why people use Sony as the most reliable source is because they are OBVIOUSLY the most knowledgable out of ANY source. Use COMMON SENSE. That 750 Million figure that comes from Sony Music, a huge record label, is reputable enough to be picked up by hundreds of website. So if it's good enough for them and widely accepted as his total by the public why is it not good enough for here? Going by Wikipedia policies 750 Million should be his total. End of story. --Mrparissm (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources claiming 750 million units sold by Jackson:

USA Today[17] ABC News[18] CBS News[19] MSNBC[20] People[21] The Times[22] Forbes[23] Reuters[24] E![25]

I hope this helps to demonstrate the wide verifiability of this figure. Solid State Survivor (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

When interpreting these sources we should probably take this statement from The Wall Street Journal into account:

"(An estimated figure previously mentioned) is an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million. That figure (750mil) first got legs in late 2006, when Raymone Bain, a publicist for Mr. Jackson at the time, touted in a letter to Jackson fan clubs that sales had "exceeded over 750 million units."

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.

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."

Now if this is true - actually no, if this is verifiable, which it is - then all of these 750mil figures have come from a publicist sending a letter to fanpages, which have in turn published it... absolutely, totally, completely 100% unreliable. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

K.i.a.c. AGAIN if you want to use that wsj OPINION piece as some sort of bible and ignore all the other sources linked to on this page than by all means do so. HOWEVER please note that same piece has the Beatles at a THIRD of their total on this Wikipedia list and that Michael Jackson is ABOVE Elvis. Of course you won't pay any attention to that because your main focus is to somehow discredit Michael Jackson and back your best bud Harout72. That piece has no relevant data to this discussion. Who cares where the 750mil figure was first heard, it was later VERIFIED by Official Sony press releases and statements linked to on this very page. --Mrparissm (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal is no less reliable as a source than any of those other publications. At what point does this article say it is an opinion piece? It's not your average facts and figures article, yes, it is subjective. It's questioning the "facts" which are laid out in front of us, which we are expected to gobble up. As I said in my above response - please refrain from comparing these artists, this is not a competition, there is no literal first place, they aren't comparitive. I don't give a fuck about Michael Jackson either way (pardon my French), that's where I stand on this, neutral as ever, greatest pop singer of all time, pedo, virgin, whatever... I don't care. Stop trying to make this some personal issue, the only person who seems to have a personal issue with these figures is you. Will you be here after/if this is resolved? No. Will I? Yes. That's your right, but realise the shoes you're putting yourself in.

It's less reliable and verifiable than the very record company that knows Michael Jackson's sales! And it's quite obviously an opinion piece the man himself states in the article that he's guessing. And if you would actually read the article without your obvious bias you would see that he was confirming the 750 Million number and states how Sony MIGHT have gotten to it! He then states it's more than likely a combination of Albums + Singles. He never once states that the figure is incorrect. If you notice this list on Wikipedia is for RECORDS sold which INCLUDES albums and singles! How is this article disputing anything here? If you would actually take the time to READ with an open mind and actually see what's being stated over and over again you would see this. Is this a personal issue for me? Yes it is and it's because of people like you trying to discount this mans legacy. That ENTIRE LIST is filled with inflated numbers yet all you and anybody else is doing is singling Michael Jackson out. Going by Wikipedia's policies the most verifiable and most reported figures should be the ones used. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes Sony Music verifiable? There has been multiple claims in this very talk page that seem to indicate to me that record companies are renowned for editing/inflating/deflating figures to suit themselves. The WSJ, a reliable publication also clearly states that this figure began as a matter of fiction. At what point does a record company do their own research and minimise a figure when they have all these sources copying each other? Of course they're not going to - unless they stand to gain, as with EMI and The Beatles mentioned above. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

K.I.A.C. please don't sit there and act like you know what Sony or any record company would do because you don't. And the article never states it started as a matter of fiction it states the first place the figure was revealed! That does NOT make it fiction as SONY THEMSELVES HAVE VERIFIED THE NUMBER. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or not but you can't speak for them and I would appreciate if you would stick with the facts and drop all this conjecture that has no relevance to the discussion. People have posted source after source after source. Yet you and your buddy want to hang on this one opinion piece that doesn't even confirm anything your way anyway! --Mrparissm (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

read this http://www.michaeljackson.com/uk/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the top of the page. No artist websites. No way they hold up against other more reliable sources. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/

JFonseka just for the record Wall street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html) cites two independent researches claiming Michael Jackson's sales figures of 132 million to 202 million worldwide. "One of this independent researchers is Guillaume Vieira, an engineer in Paris, who has compiled his own totals for his Web site, Fan of Music. By his count, Michael Jackson had sold 205.5 million albums before his death, plus many millions more in singles and downloads." Here you can see COMPLETE LIST: http://fanofmusic.free.fr/BestSellersWorldActs and according to him Michael Jackson is above Elvis Presley. Elvis' albums total is 187,000,000 and Michael Jackson 205.5 million before his death. EOD! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the Elvis/MJ/Beatles situation - Elvis is the only one of these artists to have huge alums sales outside the RIAA compass. Howver that is another subject.

Many media reports have been casually reporting the 750 million for MJ, they have taken it from an unchecked and to be blunt a totally deliberately hyped or unofficial source. That it is so being reported does not make it true. Sony have included in two publicity statements these figures, but in manner that does not support this as as an official company view point. Nor that it is for individual units. - The most obvious falsity of the claims for 750Millon is so glaringly patent that I am wondering why it is even being discussed. It is in a count of Michael's album sales much of which is in the public domain. Firstly forget the 100 million for Thriller,it is much lower. When you count the global sales for Michaels 5 best selling albums these come to 160 Million or just under. The last of these albums has an 8 million tag to it. ie - - Off The Wall: 19m - Thriller: 65m - Bad: 28m - Dangerous: 29m - History: 18m - Invincible: 8m - - This means all his other albums have sold below the 8 million mark. There is no possibiliity of extrapolating much more than 200 Million sales here. Then add the singles and the 350 Million is actually a generous figure. Also, no doubt that Michael Jackson is selling well now, but a large amount of the figures are downloads. - - What we have here is a situation, where by if you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it, and the bigger the lie the better.

- I think full credit needs to be given to the guardian of this site from failing to be pressurised by no doubt genuine fans who have bought into the 750M hype. And who can blame them, they see the figures quoted frequently enough. But it is still hype. What I think will be of interest is to see how far up the RIAA ladder Mr Jackson shoots up in a year or two.I think his fans will be disappointed to find that it is no where near what one would be led to believe if the 750 Million sales and current figures being thrown around like Confetti had any credability. PaulStar —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulStar (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PaulStar give me Elvis' sales breakdown with his 1 billion sale figure! With officially ratified sales! You can't! Why? Because that number is fake just like MJ's 750 million number! I repeat independent researcher Guillaume Vieira mentioned in Wall street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html that Elvis sold 187 million albums worldwide. You all use that article as source to point out that MJ didn't sold 750 million so then you also must use/apply the same source for Elvis because that same researcher has said that Elvis sold 187 million albums worldwide (http://fanofmusic.free.fr/BestSellersWorldActs) so... Why double standards! BTW do you know when all started with that 1 billion number for Elvis? :) Also, please give me ABBA's sales breakdown with 370 million figure and Mouskouri's sales breakdown with 300 million figure! You can't! Why? Because -> fake inflated numbers without details! You all dispute MJ's Sony official number because Sony has refused to give details on the MJ's sales but be fair and acknowledge that you can say the same thing for Elvis, ABBA, Mouskouri etc. ...all inflated numbers without details just like MJ's 750 million, but you people here are only talking about MJ! Hmmmmmm, why? Why?!?! PaulStar, you are obviously Elvis' fan and that is OK but this list must be objective and if all big acts have label's inflated numbers WITHOUT details and without independent officially ratified sales that certify those big numbers than why ONLY correct MJ's number? Double standards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Z.K. HAL!!! That's what I've been saying! And another thing I would like to point out to PaulStar is that the numbers on this Wiki list are for RECORDS sold NOT Albums! That is a big difference. RECORDS sold includes singles, Albums, etc. So there's no way for us to find our own numbers we have to trust the record companies. Which only makes sense. --Mrparissm (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

is are my reason why he sold 750 List of best-selling music artists http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html and here is one more http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ i am not a michael jackson fan but your are being bias with your cliams even though we have better sources for michael jackson then elvis or the beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnali123 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links you gave do not show any total sales numbers, find another source please. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Momusufan it states his 750 Million total right there in the article! READ. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but other sources are needed to back that number up, ex: record company stats. Momo san ^Gespräch 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html you just said that sony records and the offical michael jackson site is lying yet cnn are right now i have just given you cnn sources which say he has sold 750 records and you are tying to say you are more qualified in sales then them you just cant except he has sold that much and that is the truth even if you do not like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwordpass (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BIG OBJECTION! In this article there is a citation for Michael Jackson 350 million figure http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.world/index.html - citation number 9 in article. In that cnn source there are actually 2 numbers. 350 million figure and 700 million figure in STORY HIGHLIGHTS! Hmmmmm, so why do you take 350 million as correct number? Why not 700 million? Also I gave before links for another 4 CNN articles with 750 million figures and now I will put many more sources from ABC, CBS, MTV, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Sky, BBC with 750 million number: 1) http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/26/2609049.htm 2) http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=8050704&page=1 3) http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WinterConcert/wireStory?id=7075284 4) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/06/entertainment/michaeljackson/main5137816.shtml 5) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/entertainment/main3461884.shtml 6) http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml 7) http://cbs2.com/entertainment/michael.jackson.hospitalized.2.1059895.html 8) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html?_r=1 9) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062503127.html 10) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/wpix-michael-jackson-heart-attack,0,6959872.story 11) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29531056/ 12) http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Michael-Jackson-Memorial-Service---In-Numbers/Article/200907115331455 13) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8121749.stm 14) http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f27ec8db-af05-4f36-916e-3d57f91ecf5e etc... I can put here another 100+ reliable sources with 750 million number and this article have ONLY 1, I repeat ONLY 1 source with 300+ million MJ's number. Also I would like to point out again this Guinness picture (you must enlarge picture)... http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg So according to Guinness Michael Jackson is first entertainer to have officially ratified sales of more than 100 million albums outside the USA. So according to Guinness Elvis eventually sold maximum 99,999,999 albums and plus his 120 million RIAA certified US sales that is only 219,999,999 + worldwide singles. Later or tomorrow I will do Elvis certification breakdown around the world using same method as Harout72 to show that Elvis' 1 billion figure is fake. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Jackson's Numbers Need To Be Reverted To 750+ Million

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{editprotected}} I've cancelled out this for now, Mrparissm, I hope that you will not mind; currently, we do not really have a clear consensus; it's all rather tl;dr. Remember that there is no deadline; discussions are ongoing, and I'm sure that we can reach a conclusion - but, in fairness to all parties, we have not really done so yet. If you disagree with my removing the edit request for now, then please contact me on my talk page. I hope that you'll understand; I'm just trying to help matters along in resolving this dispute. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not fair, actually it is complete discrimination, prejudice to have Michael Jackson at 350 million while Elvis is at 1 billion or ABBA at 370m or Mouskouri at 300m etc. until we have clear concensus here. For all artists we must apply same rules and fact is we'll never have consensus here because there are no big artists including Michael Jackson with completely officially ratified sales with details. So for all artists we are using (equally) credible sources and according to big majority of sources (BBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Sky News, CNN, CNN, CNN, CNN, CBS etc...) Michael Jackson sold 750 million. As you mentioned before Wikipedia is not actually interested in the truth, just what is verifiable and I repeat multiple reliable sources state the figure of 750m. Regards --Z.K. HAL (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The original edit that downgraded Michael Jackson's sales to 350+ Million should be changed back to 750+ Million as we sort this mess out and come to a consensus. There is no consensus agreeing to have his sales downgraded. So reverting back to his original 750 Million total seems fair. This was his number for over 2 years on here. Not going back to his original figure as we come to a consensus would imply a bias in the editors here as we work this out. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This list contains only the sales of Michael Jackson as a solo artist. MJ did not sold over 750 million records as a solo artist. That figure of 750 million contains also the sales of The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons (150 million records). The source that claims 350 million is reliable and realistic. A lot of sources claims 750 million, but these figures are highly inflated. In the US, Jackson sold over 61,5 million albums and singles (Certificated by RIAA)(today he sold about 70 million in the US), worldwide about 350 million records. That's very realistic (70 million in the US x 5 ≈ 350).Christo jones (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Michael Jackson's Numbers Need To Be Reverted To 750+ Million", yeah i totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanid (talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson offical website, sony records and others sources have said here he has sold this much just beacuse you say he had sold 300 million does not mean he has, you are also cliaming cnn have said this but they also said here has sold 750 million before his death

please can someone change michael jackson sales to 750 million beacuse it has been like this for 2 years. also their are better sources of michael jackson sales which state he has sold 750 million than the beatles and elvis which say they have sold 1 billion this is very unfair on michael jackson please change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk • contribs)

Those sources are NOT reliable. CNN article looks like a typo, considering other CNN articles make mention of the 750 number, and that 100 facts about MJ is just plain out wrong. It's gotten more facts than his number of albums sold wrong. Put it back. The sources already cited by someone else are reliable, and the ones being used now are garbage. Quit playing games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoMistress (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

the sources if you look above are more than realiable for michael jackson please put it back to 750 million. you are say it is not reliable beacause you do not what to except that he has sold this much. even his record company have said this they know far more than you do someone please edit michael jackson sales people are being very bias with michael jackson sales he sold more than abba. also for michael jackson their are more reliable sources which cliam here has sold 750 million than the sources you have given the beatles and elvis. could someone please put michael jackson sales back too how there where and someone put protection on List of best-selling music artists beacuse they are know someone will give the right sources for the beatles and elvis beaucse they have not sold 1 billion.

his sales have bern 750 million for 2 years why change michael jackson sales , but not elvis or the beatles even thought their better sources for michael jackson sales . and i am not a fan of michael im a elvis fan this article is bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk • contribs)

I must admit that I am overwhelmed by the fact how genuine of fans you all are. I truly sense one thing here, with all you fans screaming and shouting PUT MICHAEL BACK TO 750 MILLION, YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE I HAVE THIS SOURCE THAT SOURCE, and I hate to say this guys, but I no longer sense competence within most of the discussions, I only sense obsessed fans who due to exasperation are blinded from seeing what's realistic and logical. I find especially some of the statements incredibly unique, Michael Jackson has passed away and you guys are singling him out for inflated sales numbers when your ENTIRE LIST IS FULL OF THEM! or This was his number for over 2 years on here. Mrparissm, do you even read what you write before pressing the Save Page button? Are you suggesting that we should leave his numbers inflated only because he passed away, even though, you admit that the figure is inflated? Just because for many months we had 750 for Jackson or 200 million for Toni Rossi (for example) doesn't mean they were necessarily correct figures, I have spent over two years policing this page constantly cleaning up. And what his death got to do with his figures? Does this also mean that we should put The Drifters back on the list with their 300 million in sales, regardless of the fact that they don't have a single evidence of sales within databases anywhere in the world only because some/all members have passed away too?--Harout72 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

sony records and his offical website know more than any one here on wikipedia and why is it only michael jackson sales which are being edited when their is nothing wrong with the information you have been given

http://www.michaeljackson.com/uk/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world
http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html

i think some should complain about you Harout72

beaucse he claims that cnn are right about michael jackson but in the sources below it says he has sold 750 million thats 2 cnn soruces agianst 1 of your other cnn source you have provided

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html

also if you work this hard on michael jackson sales why dont you work this hard with the beatles, elvis or any other best selling artists

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Jackson, summary and further discussion

Re. Request to change the figure for Michael Jackson from 350m to 750m on 11 August 2009.

This edit was reverted here.

This discussion is to establish a consensus as to whether the above edit should be reinstated.

Summary so far

In the interests of the length of the above arguments, I have marked previous discussions as 'archived', and I have attempted to summarize the current position here in a neutral way.

If you feel that this summary is wrong, please change it but please keep it brief. I apologize for any errors in summarizing; I am just trying to facilitate a rational discussion.  Chzz  ►  02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In support of the proposed edit

• Vpuliva (talk · contribs)
• Passwordpass (talk · contribs)
• Mrparissm (talk · contribs)
• Solid State Survivor (talk · contribs)
• Alexdow93 (talk · contribs)
• Z.K. HAL (talk · contribs)
• Johnali123 (talk · contribs)
• Nathanid (talk · contribs)
• PsychoMistress (talk · contribs)

  IP's 92.3.34.136 (talk · contribs) and 92.3.234.167 (talk · contribs) (Same ISP, likely the same person)

• mclarenaustralia (talk · contribs)
• Pyrrhus16 (talk · contribs)

Rationales

• Core policy: "verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
• Many sources shows this figure: Sony  · Sony press release  · MTV  · Michaeljackson.com  · ABC  · ABC  · CBS  · CBS  · NY Times  · Wash. Post  · LA times  · Sky  · BBC  · BBC  · USA Today  · ABC  · CBS  · MSNBC  · People  · Times  · Forbes  · Reuters  · E!
• Featured article Michael Jackson uses 750m
• CNN and Telegraph (used as sources to refute this) have both quoted 750m CNN  · Telegraph
• Other figures (Beatles etc.) use verifiable widely-supported sources, have not been similarly challenged
• Using forms of estimate other than reliable sources is original research, synthesis

In opposition of the proposed edit

• Harout72 (talk · contribs)
• JFonseka (talk · contribs)
• PaulStar (talk · contribs)
• Christo jones (talk · contribs)
• 124.179.173.61 (talk · contribs)
• Kiac (talk · contribs)
• 75.142.54.211 (talk · contribs)

Rationales

• CNN and Daily Telegraph reliable sources state 350m CNN (Though 'story highlights' says 700m)  · Telegraph ("more than 300m")  · German TV news channel N24 (Germany) reports 400 million [26]
• Estimates based on adding up various database sources (see above) show that the figure of 750m is unrealistic
• History of record company exaggeration of sales figures
• Other figures (Beatles etc.) may need reassessment also
• Unrealistic recent leap in reported figure from 350m to 700m
• Sony is a primary source
• WSJ article claims 750m figure originated from publicist
• Archive records from reputable sources indicate far fewer sales; BBC reports 165m as of 2003 BBC 2003 - The Age (Australian) reports 350m as of 2006 TheAge
• Wikipedia records indicate the 750 million figure first crept into the Michael Jackson page on the third of November 2006 Wiki750m, the sources given by the contributor were a Belgian fansite MJMTC, this site was publishing a statement by Michael Jackson's publicist Raymone Bain, she had claimed 750 million sales figures, which the Times of India attributes as her statement Times of India as well as the aforementioned WSJ article. Prior to this, worldwide sales listed for Michael Jackson in the Wikipedia pages have ranged from 150 million to 350 million records, gradually increasing as the pages were updated, all of them almost invariably listing Michael Jackson fansites as the source.
• In light of all evidence and claims, and given the conflicting reports by reputable news sources, with each other as well as in some cases themselves, the opponents of the 'edit reversion' request that more research be done into news archives prior to 2006 to either validate or invalidate the 750 million claim before a final justification be made as there appears to be sufficient evidence to indicate the 750 million claim came during the World Music Awards, and as being a publicist's statement, was picked up by major news sources, in which case would put the primary source as Raymone Bain and secondary sources as the reputable news outlets.

Further Discussion and comments

Note Please try to be brief and make policy-based statements, thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

i what to report JFonseka here is saying sony are wrong but the bbc are right beacuse that is what he wants to believe what do you lot think is more reliable and JFonseka you cant say which one is right beaucse you are bias on sales

please change sales back to the orginal which is 750 million for the past 2 years for the time being thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk • contribs)

...and your brief, policy-based argument is...?  Chzz  ►  06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

sony records know more about sales than anyone on wikipedia and that is a fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

and you claim the daily telegraph are right but they also say here sold 750 million http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5642353/Michael-Jackson-Key-facts-about-the-life-of-the-world-famous-singer.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

all the sources that you are tying to defend you arguement with also claimed he has sold 750 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We must assume that this 750 million figure resonates from the original publicist statement, which was obvious hogwash (not long after, it was 1 billion - and she is his publicist). Why must we assume this? Because a reliable source, WJS, states it clearly, a source which has done its research and compiled a list of alterior figures which question this universally used and copied figure. WP:SOURCES states As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. - I believe the numerous sources, all of which are just your usual news services (and a record label which is a primary source), have never published any fact-checking evidence and have been negatively scrutinized. Using certifications to gain the upper hand on the logic of each figure is more viable, because; 1) Certifications are the source of this information, news services would be using them for research if they are going to publish their own figure. 2) All national music industries used on WP publish sources of the accumulation of figures, sure it may be possible some are missing - however, this opinion is not proven anywhere and is void. That's me wrapped up. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is bullshit (excuse my french). Just because she was the first to reveal the figure(I will state reveal again because she did not originate it she revealed it. Big difference.) does not mean every major news outlet including MTV, Michaeljackson.com, ABC, ABC, CBS, CBS, NY Times, Wash. Post, LA times, Sky, BBC, BBC, USA Today, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, People, Times, Forbes, Reuters, E!, the World Music Awards and even SONY THEMSELVES got the figure from her. To think that they did is absolutely ridiculous and shows an innate bias on your part to even make the huge jump it would take to come to that conclusion. ZK Hal below pretty much destroyed your whole certification arguement below so no need to comment on that. --Mrparissm (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Using various certifications sources and same Harout72's analyse method (with 10% add!) Elvis' 1 billion figure is even more unrealistic then MJ's but his figure is still on this wikipedia article (same goes for The Beatles, ABBA ...). - Elvis' total US sales stands at about 120 million according to RIAA. With Harout72's 10% add = 132 million. - Canadian sales is just 2.9 million according to his certifications and with Harout72's 10% almost 3.2 million. Way bellow MJ's 5.3 million! - German sales stands according to certification way bellow MJ. - In France 2.3 million and with Harout72's 10% add 2.6 million. Way bellow MJ! - In Switzerland, his sales from '89-09 165,000 with the 10%, let's say 200,000. - In The Netherlands, Elvis sales stands according to certification way bellow MJ. - UK's database is currently under construction, however, Elvis' album sales is similiar to MJ, 18 million. etc... Conclusion: According to certifications Elvis' 1 billion figure is inflated much more than MJ's figure but Elvis' 1 billion is still on this wikipedia article. This list represents relations between big artists so it is not fair, it is absurd to put down one artist because his certifications don't show certian figure and at the same time leave another artist's even more questionable figure on the list.--Z.K. HAL (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

if sony records say he has sold 750 million they are right a record company are much more reliable than any sources you have given

http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson

i think people are not except michael jackson has sold this amount yet it states the beatles and elvis have sold 1 billion but the sources give for michael jackson are more reliable it does not make any sense

list of best selling music artists also claims abba yes abba has sold more than michael jackson who will believe that come just accept the sales and stop being bias on one person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.188 (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"350m group" assertions and my replies:
1) CNN and Daily Telegraph reliable sources state 350m CNN (Though 'story highlights' says 700m)  · Telegraph ("more than 300m")  · Austrian news service Kleine Zeitung reports 400m [27]  · German TV news channel N24 (Germany) reports 400 million [28]
Reply: At least 4 CNN sources (see above) + many CNN videos (I can put youtube links!) clearly state 750m figure.
Austrian news service Kleine Zeitung aslo reports 750m [29] ·
German TV news channel N24 (Germany) also reports 750 million [30] ·
Daily Telegraph also reports 750 million [31] · [32] ·
2) History of record company exaggeration of sales figures
Reply: So called exaggeration is only assumption becuase there are no (big) artists including Michael Jackson with complete officially ratified sales with details so you don't have independent non-biased source to confirm your claims about exaggeration.
3) Unrealistic recent leap in reported figure from 350m to 700m
Reply: That leap theoretically may be the result of new, better review of MJ's chart & sale history around the world.
4) WSJ article claims 750m figure originated from publicist
Reply: WSJ article also claims that "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." So according to WSJ MJ is way ahead of ABBA, yet in this wikipedia article ABBA = 370m and MJ = 350?! and also WSJ article mentioned Guillaume Vieira and his analyse and according to him MJ sold 205.5m albums and Elvis sold 187m albums (MJ is second only to the Beatles.).
IMO this WSJ article is clear indication that some members of "350 group" are completly biased becuase they didn't mentioned ABBA and Elvis' figures!
5) Sony is a primary source.
Reply: That is maybe truth but you don't have (irrefutable) proof so that is only speculation, assumption. For all artists we are using equally credible sources so why do we question (only) Michael Jackson? We must apply same rules for all artists otherwise we have discrimination! I repeat there are no (big) artists with complete officially ratified sales with details so we don't have independent non-biased source to (irrefutable) confirm any claims about inflated numbers!
Conclusion: Michael Jackson's sales should be at 750+ million Q.E.D. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...This entire section needs to be cleaned up, any NEW contributions should be placed in the relevant places in the rationale, much of this is a repeat of data as well as irrelevant points in regards to The Beatles and Elvis, this discussion was to determine the credibility and verifiability in regards to the sources and merit of the 750 million claim. This section is also meant to be brief in accordance with what Chzzz set out. Given that much of the discussion here is highly irrelevant, I request Chzzz to moderate it on the basis of irrelevancy, repeat data and disorganization. JFonseka (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In 2006. MIchael Jackson was awarded with Diamond Award at World Music Awards. During presentation speech Beyoncé clearly said "... Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records worldwide...". Source: youtube video at 0:43. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...Beyonce is not considered a reputable source of sales figures, please read the rationale and contribute relevant and new information there. The KleineZeitung report should be dismissed as it states 400m sales in an article before his death, and as Z.K.HAL has provided, it reports 750m after his death, no doubt this indicates they have not done any proper investigation and is likely to have taken the figure from another news source. JFonseka (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But World Music Awards is very reputable source of sales figures and Beyonce's speech was integral part of World Music Awards. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...As far as has been stated, the WMA awards in regards to Michael Jackson is Best Selling Artist ever with no indication of sales figures (numbers) and the Diamond Award which is for 100m+ albums sold. The WMA in itself has given no such indication of 750m, therefore the number 750m number can only be attributed to a statement of Beyonce, if I'm incorrect (and I maybe), please give the official publication or a link to this publication by the WMA organization itself or the IFPI certifying Michael Jackson of 750m sales. JFonseka (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

On the official World Music Award web site [33]  · there is a special section dedicated to Michael Jackson [34]  · . There in quicktime video: "Michael receives the Diamond Award at the 2006 World Music Awards in London" at 4:08 starts World Music Awards Diamond Award video montage dedicated to Michael Jackson and at 4:15 you can see statement "750 million records sold". BTW just prior to that video montage Michael Jackson has recieved Guinness certificate for Thriller. (If you have problem with apple quicktime plugin the same thing you can see on previous youtube video at 5:38-5:43.) --Z.K. HAL (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ZK HAL that is actually a brilliant point. No way a HUGE awards show like the WORLD MUSIC AWARDS would award this man with best selling artist of all time and have 750 Million records sold quoted there without it being his official number and verified. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

May I make a humble contribution.

1 Surely this is not a Michael Jackson fan site. - - 2. I know a lot of the media (and Michael Jackson fans) have used the 750 Million figure, but they have used it without any checks whatsover, nor the application of commonsence.

- 3.let us be honest here, there is no possibiliy of Michael Jackson having sold 750 million in individual units.

- 4. This is so blatently and patently obvious, that I am wondering why there is a discussuion on the matter.

- 5. Michael Jackson has only released a relatively small number of records and there is nothing beyond that. We know that Thriller has sold about 65 Million and th next best less than half that, and other than the top 5, a few million each. It is not possible to get much beyond the 200 Milliom mark here, add the singles and we get to about 300 Million.

- 6. With the number of MJ release, even if all of them sold as much as Thriller we still won't get to 750million.

- 7. So all MJ fans please take your MJ hats off for the minute, you cannot press this point.

- 8. A better point to press, is why not go to all the sources who have been claiming the 750Million and ask them to justify it.

- 9. As for The Beatles and Elvis, they both have huge catalogues, had huge singles sales when singles sold. Have huge selling album catalogues, which have been renewed from vinal, to tape, to CD, and the quality of evidence is better. It is not just a bland statement like 750M. In Elvis case, other than general evidence, Sony actually did some sort of exersise in 2001. Paulstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulStar (talk • contribs) 12:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at this discussion, but I really wish people would understand that one of our roles as editors is to evaluate the credibility of sources. The 750M claim simply isn't credible. Jackson should be placed in the 350M range, with an explanatory section at the end of the article explaining the apparent source of the 750M figure, referenced to the WSJ article as a reliable source of doubt.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PaulStar we cannot cite "common-sense" unfortunately as this is not considered part of wikipedia policy, as you can imagine everyone would be citing common-sense. We need sources to either validate or invalidate. Therefore we can't use personal opinions of personal reasonings either without some kind of official evidence. Right now, pulling out archive sales data prior to October 2006 would be useful in showing that the 750 million claim was an unreasonable leap as per evidence from official sources shortly prior to the publicists claims of 750 million which was the origin. JFonseka (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

so you are claiming sony records are right about elvis and the beatles but they are wrong about michael jackson the does not seem right

...This is incorrect, I have never cited Sony as a reference for Elvis' sales, and neither have I discussed Elvis' sales here, I have however pointed out it's irrelevant as of this moment. As I recall, Elvis' reference for his sales figure listed on Wikipedia has been the Time Magazine, America.gov and RollingStone. Sony does not manage The Beatles records, that is done by EMI, please research before throwing out accusations along with incorrect "evidence". JFonseka (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WSJ article also claims that 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." So according to WSJ MJ is way ahead of ABBA, yet in this wikipedia article ABBA = 370m and MJ = 350?! and also WSJ article mentioned Guillaume Vieira and his analyse and according to him MJ sold 205.5m albums and Elvis sold 187m albums (MJ is second only to the Beatles this is double standerds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.65.10 (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...The WSJ article has not claimed that Michael Jackson is "way ahead" of ABBA, it has stated Guillaume Vieira's research as well another researcher's but gives no indication as to whether they accept it or not, after all they state significantly different totals; 131 million and 205 million. Keep in mind, the WSJ article is mainly to demonstrate a reputable source contesting claimed sales figures of Michael Jackson. We cannot use Guillaume Veieira's research as it is not official in anyway. JFonseka (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

and you are saying thriller has sold 65 million but I would like to point out again this Guinness picture (you must enlarge pictureSo according to Guinness Michael Jackson is first entertainer to have officially ratified sales of more than 100 million albums outside the USA. and thriller has sold over 104 million http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg

so if guinness world records say here is the most successful entertainer that means he has out sold elvis and the beatles please show me sources like this for elvis and the beatles and then i will believe you

...That does not indicate sales in anyway, that is success in terms of money made. The same Guinness World Records cites Paul McCartney as the most successfull musician and composer. JFonseka (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

JFonseka please read what the man is saying. In that Guinness of world records photo it shows that Thriller is at 104 Million Copies sold world wide! It doesn't get any more official than that! Why is that relevant you ask? The widely reported figure for Thriller is 50+ Million by News outlets and independent researchers. But this goes to show there is no accurate way to independently get an artists international sales unless you go through the record companies! 50+ to 104 Million is over twice as much! If you want the most accurate numbers you have to go through the record companies. Period. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read above sony records have said michael jackson has sold this amount they know more about him than anyone on wikipedia you are must have something against michael jackson beacause i dont see anyone working this hard even thought all the sources they have give say 350 million they also say here has sold 750 million so if you read all the information about you can see the are more sources that say he has sold 750 million then there are what you are claiming

Do note that we have seen this link posted, I will not repeat the issue with this, it has already been mentioned, so please read. I deleted it because it unnecessary to post something as if it's new evidence when it's already been done, however you may cite it as a reference as part of a bigger point you're trying to make, but unfortunately everyday someone posts it as if it's new evidence and it's an unnecessary waste of space.JFonseka (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

like wikipedia says above verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true

the soruces that guinnes world records report for michael jackson are more reliable than the ones you have given sir paul mccartney beacuse you can clealy see in the pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...Actually The Independent is considered by Wikipedia as exactly the kind of sources that should be cited, definitely not links from random websites which have the possibility of hosting photoshopped images (as you have provided). Though it is correct in that case, since the award is well known for Michael Jackson, do note that the Guiness World Record that Paul McCartney holds can be found in the Guinness World Records book itself (obvious), and your claim that the source is not reliable is untrue. I give up, someone else can spoon-feed this guy.JFonseka (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson offical website has said he sold this much

if you read all the information above you can not say which sources are wrong or right just beacuse you believe one of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I think the 750 million figure should be reinstated into the article. The list is about reported sales, not actual sales, for which no one here knows the true figure. The 750 million figure is widely reported. Is it possible that it is inflated? Yes. Just like the sales figures for Elvis and the Beatles may be. My suggestion is to re-add the 750 million figure, but add a footnote stating that this figure has been disputed in an article, and provide a link to the said article. It is not for anybody here to decide what's the truth and what's a lie. We add information to articles based on verifiability, not, "oh, I think this figure is inflated, so I'll go against what most of the sources say and use this single source of objection". Again, this is for reported sales. The 750 million figure is reported by hundreds of reliable sources. An explanatory footnote detailing the objection to the number of sales will suffice. Pyrrhus16 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are almost as many reported 300-400m figures as 750m. All the major news services, as far as I am concerned, have published two very different figures (750 and 300-350) for Jackson one time or another including CNN, The Daily Telegraph etc.. Now the question here is this, is it possible to to know which figure is the logical one, which figure is not spurious? My answer is, analyze the figures through the help of Certification databases and let's come to a conclusion as to whether or not the published numbers are: not necessarily correct but are they somewhere around the corner where Jackson's true figures should be? We somehow have to come to consensus, we somehow have to be able to decide which figure to go with. Because, I already see that presenting different sources, which in their turn claim two very different numbers, is not going to help us to come to consensus. --Harout72 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vast majority of new articles use 750 million figure. Regarding certification databases... You can read above Elvis' sale analyse through the help of Certification databases and conclusion is that Elvis' sale around the world is much lower then MJ's. The point is certification databases are not completely reliable sources and you can't apply special rules only for Michael Jackson. Of course you can create NEW List of best-selling music artists with using only certification databases as a source. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read above cnn and the daily telegraph say he has sold 750 million you can not say which one is right

and also i what to point out again if sony say has this much (750 million ) they are more reliable than anyone on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

and is they a way someone could edit List of best-selling music artists it is fully protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please remember this is not a comparative list. Making comparisons with another individual artist is not doing anything for this discussion and is just taking up more and more space. I've read it multiples times - MJ's stand alone figure has nothing to do with Elvis or the Beatles.

Also, please note that these all appear to be single use accounts when summarising this article: Passwordpass, Mrparissm, Z.K. HAL, Johnali123, PsychoMistress (and IPs 92.3.34.136 + 92.3.234.167), PaulStar. Could just be that they all signed up for this discussion - could. Worth noting anyway. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How fucking dare you accuse me of being multiple accounts. I don't know anyone else that posts here nor am I posting under any other account name. Look up the IP addresses if you must. For you to accuse me of something like that is ludicrous, disrespectful and unwarrented. Just because people don't agree with what the fuck you are saying does not make us the same freakin account. Give me a fucking break.

And as for your asinine arguement that these artists should not be compared is utter hogwash. This ia a LIST OF THE BEST SELLING ARTISTS. Of course their sales can be compared that's the whole point of the freakin list! To see how these artits rank amongst each other! If one artist is held to a different standard than all the others it makes the whole list worthless!--Mrparissm (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

i do not own this page neither do you Wikipedia is free encyclopedia that anyone can edit do not make out like you own it paulstar, k.i.a.c ,Harout72 and JFonseka

...Please remember, if I have deleted anything by you, it would have been to organize this mess and to stop repeated arguments, a lot of you have not read anything in the earlier discussion, do not cast out accusations. 122.106.154.185 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

just read everything above and you will see michael jackson sold 750 million we can not be bias with one artist and treat the other on List of best-selling music artists any different to michael jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.67.219 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

k.i.a.c, Your attampt to discredit me (and others) due my (3 years) inactivity on wikipedia is typical flame and actually shows your true charachter and your lack of arguments. Only important thing in this and every civilized discussion is what you are saying - arguments (not your quantity of contibutions or time spent here). --Z.K. HAL (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

how long will it take to unblock this page beacuse Administrators or any one else should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute

I repeat my previous request:

Please try to be brief and make policy-based statements, thanks.  Chzz  ►  22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply wow

I know that MJ's death was very terrible to a lot of people, and now, I really thing that it is completely weird why everyone is going on and on about his sales here. We are just waiting until everybody stops yelling, and shouting, so we can make an agreement on what to do to the article according to policy of course.

(P.S. I don't mean for people to take offense.)--Cubs197 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

this all started beaucse Harout72 decided to edit michael jackson sales even though his record company and his offical said he has sold 750 million read everything above

no one wikipedia know more than sony records change it back to how it was before harout72 changed the sales

i just think people are making one rule for michael jackson but not for anyone else on List of best-selling music artists

and people are being bias beacuse if sony records alternatively reported 350 million which is what you to believe instead of what they actual report which 750 million you will say its right