Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13


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: [1] [2] [3] --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)
Explain Harout? I'm a little confused --Tukogbani (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Articles must be published by highly reliable sources, refer to the reference section please here. This here is what BBC pages look like. The first one of your sources is not a BBC page as I know some people get deceived by the its logo. By the way, we have Oasis with a 50 million claim by Washington Post, the article is from December 2008. Have they sold another 20 million over a period of 18 months?--Harout72 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I sure as hell doubt it --Tukogbani (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, whoever keeps changing the tally back to 50 million, dont. I have found a very raputable source here , the guardian, a very respected newspaper, which has stated that Oasis have sold 70 MILLION records worldwide, thats right in the top of this article it says to include albums AND singles, dvds, videos etc. 50 million is the album tally as stated by washington post, if you include all of the singles oasis have sold worldwide, especially of 'wonderwall' you'll find that it will round up to sales of close to 70 million. I have UK and RIAA sales certifications to back this up. Here is the source for 70 million. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talkcontribs) 09:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mewerlack is entirely correct here. Let's break this down - 1. The Guardian is considerably more reliable that The Washington Post. 2. There are 2 sources backing up the 70 million claim, compared to 1 opposing it. 3. These sources are including album, single and DVD sales as we are SUPPOSED to. The Washington Post source only includes album sales. 4. The Washington Post is about a year and a half out of date.

Fact is, Oasis have sales at the 70 million mark. The article WILL have to be amended to show this - I will make sure of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the "how can they have sold 20 million in 18 months" argument. They haven't - it's just The Washington Post are only including albums, and so have reported a figure lower than what it actually is. Sources have been reporting over 60 million sales for over 2 years now; the only reason they haven't been included seems to be because they aren't newspapers.

This article is such a mess because of thinking like this. Time to improve it, starting with quoting Oasis' ACTUAL sales figures of 70 million.

The Guardian, The Belfast Telegraph, BBC, NME and numerous other sources refute the low claim stated by the Washington Post a year and a half ago. Time to amend the article. By the way, that BBC link provided IS real. It actually IS on the BBC site and oncee again, the BBC are more reliable than the Washington Post. you seem to have mistakenly assumed that BBC news is the only BBC website - it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the article by Washington Post that currently supports Oasis on the list, and it clearly states 50 million records not albums as stated by user Mewerlack above. I understand that there are sources which claim 70 million and there are also sources claiming the 50 million figure. In this case, not only Washington Post is more preferable because it's more reliable than Belfast Telegraph but also the figure stated by Washington Post is close to what the certifications gathered by Oasis suggest. It should be noted that the sales of Oasis hasn't been astronomical outside of UK, this is what their sales looks like in the following markets according to certifications:
There are no major sales in Austria [5], no major sales in Finland [6], no major sales in Brazil [7], no major sales in Mexico [8]. All in all, their worldwide actual sales should not surpass 50 million maximum.
As for the BBC source above which claims 70 million records worldwide, I hate to say it but it's not a BBC page, it should not be confused with BBC only because it carries BBC logo. This is what a BBC page should look like here. --Harout72 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC source doesnt just suggest that oasis have sold 70 million records, it adds more verifibility by stating this true 'as of June 2009'. This suggests that the BBC obviously have a very reliable and accurate source pinpointing by june 2009, that they had sold this amout. Also, platinum and gold certifications only tally sales when they reach a specific checkpoint, for example every 500,000 sales or so, leaving many remaining sales rounding off in limbo; not producing an accurate description. And as for South American sales, im pretty sure Oasis have sold very strongly in argentina and brazil considering the amount of tickets they sold there on their latest tour, it seems that becuase sales in those kind of countries are very inaccurate that there arent any verifiable figures. This doesnt mean it has not sold well there. Im not trying to produce a biased few here either; i am not a fan of Oasis, I just think that its been widely known over the years that Oasis have sold more than their counterparts like the Chili peppers and Linkin Park etc., so it would be silly to place them on the same level just because you cant find enough sales accredations. I think that two claims by two highly respectable (government funded) sources should be enough. Surely UK newspapers would have more knowledge on a UK band than a US one would? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talkcontribs) 06:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The washington post article looks a lot more sketchy and unverefiable than the BBC or guardian ones do. The Post article doesnt even have a full knowlegde of Oasis focusing more on the brotherly tensions than the sales of the music itself. One more thing, surely theyve sold 70 million if the band's homepage on wikipedia even states this and it has for months now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talkcontribs) 06:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part do you not understand Mewerlack? It is not a BBC page, it is a wikipedia mirror page. Read what it says at the bottom of that page. And please don't replace the Washington Post with Belfast Telegraph as the latter is not more reliable. As for the certifications coming from the databases, they are a very reliable source of information to rely upon as far as sales figures are considered. --Harout72 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, stop being so ignorant, im not talking about the BBC page; it's 'THE GUARDIAN' (not belfast telegraph, i never mentioned that)a UK paper referencing a UK band with a much more-hands on account on the band. If you actually READ the washington post article youll realise it doesnt sound like a very reliable source. And yes, The guardian (a lbig UK paper) is MUCH more reliable than some small inland US paper. I mean cmon, what US paper would know anything about Oasis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talkcontribs) 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found yet another source.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talkcontribs) 09:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post is a highly regarded news service. Since the figure presented by Washington Post is closer to what the sum of certifications suggest, I'd say The Washington Post, in this case, happens to have done their research more meticulously than any of the sources that claim 70 million for Oasis. By the way, you have never at any point during this discussion provided an article by The Guardian (not that it would be more reliable in comparison with Washington Post). As for your latest source, we don't accept sources of that kind here at this page. --Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually harout, The Guardian IS more reliable than The Washington Post. The Guadian is among the most respected newspapers in the world, consdiderably moreso than The Washington Post. Not only that but it's considerably more recent.

I will remind you that doing your own research is NOT permitted on wikipedia. So no, your method is wholly unreliable, not least because you missed out many major markets and simply dismissed sales in certain countries as "minimal". That is not a reliable way of doing things and therefore that entire method can be forgotten.

And I would like to know why NME would not be a reliable source. We should not only be including newspapers on here - magazines like NME ARE reliable sources in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talkcontribs) 14:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WiseNinja1, you happen to be the second person mentioning about an article by The Guardian, whereas both you and Mewerlack have failed to provide the article by The Guardian that you are speaking of. Yes, The Guardian is among the most respected news papers; however, Washington Post is not less reliable as you are suggesting. As for the Certification databases, I see you have stated above that I have missed some major markets, besides the Japanese market which currently doesn't offer a searchable database for certifications, do you mind pointing out what larger markets you're speaking of? In addition, if we have two different figures coming from two different news services, and if there is a way to verify through databases and be able to tell which figure's close to the actual sales, there's nothing wrong with conducting a research of that kind. After all certification databases are reliable sources. With regard to NME, we've had lots of inflated figures in the past coming from similar music magazines; therefore, it's essential to accept highly regarded news services only to avoid exaggerated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The BBC and the NME are both highly respected, reliable publications - however (Tukogbani and WiseNinja1) beware - both of those stated references are not published news items - they are web content, and both are sourced from Wikipedia. The BBC link [10] clearly states, This is an entry from Wikipedia, and the NME [11], at the end of the bio, says From Wikipedia.
That article, Oasis_(band), references that fact to the Belfast Telegraph article [12], which does indeed say a whopping 70 million records sold worldwide. However, disregarding the other self-references, that's the only one we have.
The problem of the media using Wikipedia for their fact-gathering is increasingly prevalent, and I hope you can now see why we must take care to verify claims such as these.  Chzz  ►  18:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I apoligise that I kept referncing the Guardian as a source I had a link too, I only recently realised that it was that Belfast Telgraph newspaper that I was in fact mistaking it with for some reason. I still think that is a reliable enough source howver and I found another source from the Independant; an irish newspaper. :) This states 70 million and so now we have 2 respectable sources claiming 70 million onto the Washington post.[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talkcontribs) 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid, the number of certifications that Oasis have gathered do not agree with the 70 million figure. The certifications, in fact, do not even suggest 50 million records, see above the figures I have provided based on certifications. Having said that 50 million is something we can work with in comparison with the 70 million, eventhough it seems inflated as well. Let's bare in mind that neither Belfast Telegraph nor The Independent are as respectable as The Washinton Post.--Harout72 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay Harout, even though self-research is not permitted in wikipedia's rules, i do agree that certifications do not indicate oasis have sold near 70 million, BUT please would you tell me why the Washington Post is necessarily more credible than the Belfast Telegraph or the Independant? What criteria are you basing this on? If you actually read the respcetive articles im sure youd realise that the washington post one is a lot less legible and looks a lot more sketchy.

As far as the kind of certification-calculations go which we conduct here to determine whether the published figures are tossed about for promotional purposes or not, you should refer to this section here at WP:OR as it clearly explains that the policy does not forbid such calculations. As for the reliability of Washington Post in comparison with Belfast Telegraph, eventhough, it should be clear to all that the former is undoubtedly more reliable, perhaps you should refer to the folks at WP:RS to get their input on that.--Harout72 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OKAY. If you go to the Wiki pages for all their STUDIO albums, it adds up to almost 60 million. Now that's for their studio albums. They released 'Stop The Clocks' in 2006 and 'Time Flies' in 2010. This almost DEFINITELY adds up to 70 million, not to mention other sales from singles etc. CORRECT THE DAMN SALES ALREADY!

where is cliff richards?

he should be in the list .he sold 260 millions worldwide. (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cliff Richard has been removed from the list, he was supported with that very source you're providing above. Richard does not seem to have sold more than 50 million records worldwide.
He has not had major sales in most countries including Switzerland, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina etc..
If there is reliable source; however, claiming that Richard has sold 50 million records which is where his actual record sales should stand, then I'll add him back to the list with that source. I can't put him back on the list with a source which claims that Richard has sold 250 million records. That's an impossible figure for him. --Harout72 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Cliff Richard is another artist where cerditations are suspect. He began his chart success in April 1959, spent 14 weeks no.1 in 1963, yet gained first creditation in 1976. According to the British Charts Company, he is the biggest singles seller ever in the UK with 21 million in sales, and his sales are also exclusive of his time with the Shadows, and his hit with The Young Ones - so as a person, overall he may have sold that amount, but as a solo artist - probably not (speculation only, not stating a fact). Eight88 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UT

In response to Harout - it seems that you're replacing a highly reliable source from the highly reliable newspaper The Times with your own personal research.

Sorry, but that is simply not allowed. That goes against wikipedia regulations I'm afraid. The Times is a reliable source and until you can provide a reliable source disproving the claim, Cliff Richard will have to be reinstated. (your own research is not permitted nor is it acceptable). Once I've made the 10 edits required for a new user to edit a locked article, I shall correct this mistake. WiseNinja1 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Certification databases are reliable, and I don't replace highly reliable sources with my own research, I simply verify the published figures. And 12 million in UK certified sales is not enough to suggest that 250 million claimed by The Times is correct, whereas Richard's sales is quite poor everywhere else in the world including the US market.--Harout72 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We're only supposed to state what we can verify in reliable sources. The Times is a reliable source - adding up certifications from a handful of countries is classed as personal research however, and cannot be used. Therefore, unless you can provide another reliable source claiming a lower figure, Cliff Richards MUST be reinstated near the top of this list. WiseNinja1 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that I am trying to come up with a total figure when I verify published figures through databases? 250 million units cannot be achieved by UK market alone regardless of how popular he's been in that market; in fact 12 million in certified sales doesn't suggest major popularity. A figure such as 250 million could only be accomplished by the support of many larger markets and I don't see any significant amount of sales coming from anywhere for Richard. There always are sources claiming outrageous figures for different artists, that doesn't mean we should accept them and fill this page with inflated claimed figures, believe me, that's the easiest thing to do here. By the way, looking at Richard's chart positions here, it's quite apparent that his target market has always been the UK. Had Richard charted and sold well elsewhere, we would have seen certifications coming from all of the larger and smaller markets, which is not the case. Having said that, it is essential to recognize that the 250 million has simply been used as a promotional tool possibly to promote his upcoming material at the time.--Harout72 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What we can determine for ourselves is totally irrelevant when it comes to wikipedia. As I have said it has happened to me before, and now it will happen to you too. It may be frustrating but we really do have to follow the rules here.

All we can do is quote reliable sources here. That's all. Your own personal research is totally irrelevant. Regardless of how things appear, The Times is an incredibly reliable source and the quoted figure is 250 million. Therefore, once I am able to, I shall be amending this article.

Unless you have a reliable source quoting a lower figure, then I shall reinstate Cliff Richard and revert any and all edits you make that remove him. WiseNinja1 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to of course, but I shall remind you that your reverts will in their turn be reverted by me if it is Cliff Richard or any other artist (with not enough certifications) you are going to insert into the article. All claimed figures should be supported with enough certifications, regardless of which news establishment the figures are coming from. Sales figures are easily inflated by record companies for promotional reasons and because I recognize that fact, I have been putting both my time and effort into keeping this page credible for nearly two years. In other words, I've been willing to go the extra mile just to keep this article the way it is now, and I will try to explain you and everyone else what it is I try to accomplish here, and if you think you can't respect that because you'd like to see your favourite artist at the top of the page, you should ask for help from administrators. Because you sound more like you are about to start an edit war than try and understand the nature of this list.--Harout72 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Times (as a newspaper) is not an ex cathedra source, and common sense should be applied when interpreting sources. If basic reasoning implies that a sourced claim from a non-science publication is dubious, it is correct to either remove that claim or to qualify it very carefully. There is, in particular, a difference between "it is" and "it is claimed". (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bing Crosby

It is better to separate this into separate segment. Two arguements exist - that he should be on the list as he was a prolific singer and had major chart success:

  • Between 1927 and 1962, he scored 368 charted records under his own name, plus 28 as vocalist with various bandleaders, for a total of 396. No one else comes close; compare. Paul Whiteman (220), Sinatra (209), Elvis (149), Glenn Miller (129), Nat King Cole (118), Louis Armstrong (85), the Beatles (68).
  • He scored the most number one hits in the 20th century: 38, compared to 24 by the Beatles and 18 by Presley.). His sales re-exist RIAA.
  • The Songwriters Guild of America has his sales at over 300 million.
  • A published authority (J.Murrells) on UK/US Charts from 1903 - 1982 has quotes 400 million.
  • In 1960 he was awarded a special platinum disk as First Citizen of the Recording Industy for 200 million sales globally.
  • He holds the biggest selling single of all time (White Christmas) - estimated at 50 million worldwide, as well as Silent Night (est's range from 7-30 million), Jingle Bells (7 million).

Arguements against:

  • RIAA awards are minimal (RIAA began in 1958, 8 years after Bings main sales) Eight88 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
btw, if you find a reference stating White Chistmas has sold 100 million, it is because it as been taken out of context. Yes it has, but only 50 million from Bing's version. Eight88 (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


  • He received 23 gold and two platinum records, including the first double-sided gold record ("Play a Simple Melody" / "Sam's Song").
  • In 1960, he received a platinum record as First Citizen of the Record Industry, having sold 200 million discs, a number that doubled by 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talkcontribs) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

but before you say i am argeeing with this article here me out these figures might be wrong for these reasons

The problem with tracking record sales is that independent companies actually produce the CD (album, as we used to call it) under contract to the label. Many different manufacturers would actually make and ship a particular album, as may be directed by the label. It's easier to ship a set of master recordings to different manufacturers around the globe and have them ship more or less locally, than to manufacture in one place, and ship from there to all destinations. A press run is considered complete, plus or minus 10%. Once shipped to a store, it's considered sold, even though in many cases the retail outlet has the right to return unsold inventory for a credit (much the same as it has been in book publishing). Ship 1 million units to FYE stores, receive 400,000 back unsold, and it's still considered 1 million sold. Then, ship the 400,000 to Borders, and now you've sold 1.4 million, even though you only made 1 million. Get 50,000 of those back, and.... and you see the difficulty in actually tracking the sales.

Add to that unscrupulous manufactures who produce less than order (knowing a certain amount will be returned) but nonetheless claim the total produced, and you complicate matters.

Then there are those who keep the machines running, and produce 2 million units, selling the extra million on the gray or black markets, without reporting that to the label, and keeping the profits themselves.

Labels may, knowing a lot of this goes on, use inflated numbers to account for the extra "sales" or return/sales, because people like to buy what everyone else is buying (even though they try to fight piracy). PR sells. High numbers generate good PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talkcontribs) 22:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

not sure why you would use this argument for a pre-CD artist. This is quoted from the WJS article where Readers can make comments, and in reading it - it is plausible this occurs, but still conjecture or stated opinion. Interesting perspective though - thanks. Eight88 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as chart entries go, artists need to remain within the top twenty for many consecutive weeks in order for their high chart positions to translate into major sales which in their turn would qualify for either gold or platinum award-levels. In other words, there are many artists who manage to occupy the number one position, but those records don't always become high sellers due to dropping out of the top 20 within a few weeks. The Billboard doesn't seem to have updated Crosby's section. But I managed to check and compare Crosby's entries to the Beatles for US market through a German chart-position tracking system called The Beatles seem to have had 20 number ones (songs) in US, whereas for Crosby, I see only 9 number ones. As for UK positions, I compared The Beatles to Crosby using chart-position tracking system. The Beatles in UK have had 17 number ones(songs) whereas Crosby doesn't seem to have had any number ones, is showing only one number-one for Crosby. In the same vain, shows that Elvis Presley has had 14 number ones (songs) in US, and 18 number ones (songs) in UK. And that wraps it up. --Harout72 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout72, Crosby had 42 number one hits in the US with recordings made between 1927 and 1947. Four of these records were before he commenced a solo career and 38 as a solo artist. That's significantly more than the Beatles and Presley. Below are Crosby's number one hits.

11. My Blue Heaven (Jack Fulton, Al Rinker, Austin Young, Charles Gaylord, Paul Whiteman Orchestra 20. Ol' Man River (Paul Whiteman Orchestra 89. Great Day (Paul Whiteman Orchestra 104. Three Little Words (The Rhythm Boys and Duke Ellington Orchestra 114. Out of Nowhere (Brunswick Studio Orchestra 119. Just One More Chance (Brunswick Studio Orchestra 123. At Your Command (Harry Barris on piano 135. Dinah (The Mills Brothers and Bennie Krueger Orchestra 159. Please (Anson Weeks Orchestra 165. Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? (Lennie Hayton Orchestra 175. You're Getting to be a Habit with Me (Guy Lombardo Orchestra 191. Shadow Waltz (Jimmie Grier Orchestra 212. Little Dutch Mill (Jimmie Grier Orchestra 217. Love in Bloom (Irving Aaronson and his Commanders 233. June in January (Georgie Stoll Orchestra 236. Soon (Georgie Stoll Orchestra 238. It's Easy to Remember (Georgie Stoll Orchestra 247. Red Sails in the Sunset (Dorsey Brothers Orchestra 271. Pennies from Heaven (Georgie Stoll Orchestra 286. Sweet Leilani (Lani McIntire and his Hawaiians 291. Too Marvelous for Words (Jimmy Dorsey Orchestra 301. The Moon Got in My Eyes (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 310. Remember Me? (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 312. Bob White (Connie Boswell and the John Scott Trotter Orchestra 321. Alexander's Ragtime Band (Connie Boswell and the Victor Young Orchestra 331. I've Got a Pocketful of Dreams (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 343. You Must Have Been a Beautiful Baby (Bob Crosby Orchestra 419. Sierra Sue (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 426. Trade Winds (Dick McIntire and his Harmony Hawaiians 430. Only Forever (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 534. White Christmas (Ken Darby Singers and John Scott Trotter Orchestra 550. Moonlight Becomes You (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 555. Sunday, Monday or Always (Ken Darby Singers 568. San Fernando Valley (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 569. Swinging on a Star (The Williams Brothers and the John Scott Trotter Orchestra 572. I Love You [Cole Porter] (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 575. I'll Be Seeing You (John Scott Trotter Orchestra 582. A Hot Time in the Town of Berlin (The Andrews Sisters, Vic Schoen Orchestra 598. Don't Fence Me In (The Andrews Sisters and the Vic Schoen Orchestra 637. It's Been a Long Time (Les Paul Trio 645. I Can't Begin to Tell You (Carmen Cavallaro on the piano 753. Now is the Hour (Ken Darby Choir

Written by Grapester

Harout, this information regarding Bing Crosby's number one hits is based on the chart research of Joel Whitburn. Whitburn is the leading authority on all historical US chart data and you would do well to familiarise yourself with "Pop Memories" from 1890-1954. You can obtain such information at:

If you check the data, Crosby's hits remained high in the charts for many weeks. "Don't Fence Me In", for example, was a number one hit for Bing and gained him a gold disc and it remained in the charts for 21 weeks and at number one for 8 weeks. "Sweet Leilani" (another gold disc), spent 25 weeks in the charts and was at number 1 for 10 weeks. These are just a couple of examples of hundreds of Crosby hits that spent weeks and weeks in the charts, so I suggest you do the research.

Written by Grapester

The german link correlates accurately to the reference books. On the plus side for Bing Crosby, it shows he had large hits (not short stayers as suggested, up to 11 weeks no. 1). On the minus side, it begins in 1940 (Bing began in 1926). It also excludes the albums from 1937 to 1946 - 22 of them major, and possible no.1 charters but at the moment cannot be verified. As for Everyhits, it begins in 1950, so non useful for Bing Crosby. You have however finally found an onsite reference that begins to show data pre-RIAA, and if anything shows that you cannot use RIAA as a baseline for artists pre 1958. The first million seller was 1903 - 50 years before RIAA, so a few years yet to find. I suggest that you continue to expand your horizons and seek out some publications on the earlier US/UK markets, as very informative and enlightening. Eight88 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one singles in Australia during the 1940s has a list of his successes on another of the major markets (Australia). Just about every single hit was a duet. Eight88 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The German link correlates accurately to the reference books? The shows only 9 number-one hits for US, whereas above you are speaking of 38 number one hits. Are you suggesting that Crosby has scored another 29 number ones before Only Forever (released in 1940). You keep mentioning that Crosby has begun as early as 1926, why don't you want to update Bing Crosby discography? It contains none of his materials before 1945. Also, artists sometimes start early but their records become commercially available many years later. It looks like this is what Crosby may have experienced. Judging from his chart-positions in Germany (only 4 of them) and in UK (only one number one) and no positions for France, I feel quite confident to say that US has most likely been his biggest market. I am not sure; however, how much record-sales those number-one hits could have generated for him, considering that the population in US was probably under 100 million. By the way, sources for Australian chart-positions? Not that they would make a big difference, especially back then in the '40s or '50s. At the moment, the population in Australia is only 21 million, I have a perfect picture in my head what kind of sales Australia's possibly under 5 million population could have produced for Crosby back then.--Harout72 (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
As has been "repeatedly" stated - RIAA, BPI, and most of the other charts are all after this period in music history. I cannot rewrite American Music History to fit within the RIAA timeframes, as you equally cannot keep demanding RIAA data that does not exist, nor will ever exist and there is NOT a 1 to 1 connection between sales and RIAA. So why keep going down that path? Why keep introducing more opinions and speculations rather than determining facts? Why not think out some of the answers yourself - like possibly back then all they had was a record player, no TV, no internet - I mean, it's not helpful - I quote from references, how am I supposed to know the dependancies behind that reference - that is why the authors write them based on their own meticulous research. The reference books are a mix of chart statistics and mini-biographies covering 1000's of artists - so only pockets of info on individuals, certainly not entire masses of detail on all releases, their dates, etc. How does this tie in with - it matches as per book (maybe even originated from it of 9 no.1 "singles" from 1940 - 1947) - the same book that specifies that overall, he had 21 singles & 1 album sell over 1 million, and 5 albums over 6 million, 2 albums 0.5 million. Note that for albums that it refers to million ($), singles million (unit). There is no correlation between sales and whether the albums topped the charts, and no detail on what 1 million ($) equates to in units. He also mentions Bings first million seller album was in 1939. It states that Bing was awarded an special platinum award in 1970 for 300,000,000. He had received one in 1960 for 200,000,000. Also, it was questioned about his selling record overseas - an opinion expressed that it would not have been huge. Repetitive answer, no records exist. UK data begins in 1952, which would have helped a lot in determining a pattern - but a similar pattern did exist in Australia (the ref btw is on the page) - which although not as large shows evidence of this. Eight88 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout, yes that's correct. Bing Crosby had many number one hits before "Only Forever" and I have outlined these details above. Bing had 383 hits in the US and more hits than anyone else. Crosby did begin recording in 1926, so I'm not sure why Wikipedia hasn't updated Bing's discography before 1945. Then again, Wikipedia is obviously a work in progress....just like this page.

Written by Grapester

Is this the source for Australia's chart positions you are referring to here? Unless a fee is paid, one cannot have an access to the positions. I cannot even verify them? As I have stated above in another section, records don't necessarily have to get certified in the same year they are released. Let's bear in mind that population is one of the two major factors (economy and the size of population) in record sales, and due to lack of population and possibly economical status, Crosby's records (at least the ones listed in RIAA's database) have been certified decades later. Note that Crosby's 1945 album Merry Christmas has received it's first Gold certification in 1970 [14] . The albums Bing Sings and White Christmas which I'm assuming that both have been released before 1945 as they are not included in Bing Crosby discography, have received their first Gold certification (Bing Sings) in 1998 and (White Christmas) in 2004. In the same vein, had Crosby's other releases before 1958 reached their first gold status or the next certification level, they would've appeared in RIAA's database. The more I analyze the more convinced I become that his sales has not been as strong as stated by some sources. As for the UK positions, the first UK position that illustrates is from 1950, although it does state in drop-down UK single-charts... ab 1952 (UK single-charts ...since 1952). Also, note that for US it states in the drop-down US single-charts...ab 1955 (since 1955) but the first Crosby's single is from 1940.--Harout72 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Points from your comments - not seeing a reference/publication does not make it invalid, nor incorrect. The majority of all references fall into this catagory. Population and economy is also valid, as equally the fact that there were fewer artists being marketed so market share was higher per artist, that LP's and 45's (and radio/films) were the only available source of obtaining the artists recordings. In 1946 RCA-Victor reported their 1 billionth album sale (J.Murrells), so sales although smaller than today, still existed in sufficient quanity. Although speculation, but as the US was at war with Germany/France/Japan in this period, I would not expect to see huge sales from these countries even if their databases did go back that far - so suggest wasting time even using them for this period in history. Regardless of whether it was 1940's or nowdays, there are a multitute of factors both assisting the artist as well as going against the artist. There is evidence of 29 million in the US (J.Murrells), and if you "believe" White Christmas only went gold in the US - then 50 million for album, and 50 million for single globally. If you "believe" Silent Night, Jingle Bells did not sell well in the US, then another 12 million. Already 140 million on a few of this known sellers. But of course, I equally believe via common sense that these did sell in the US, so is double-dipping on data. Statistics can be manipulated to whatever you want to see, that does not make it correct. It is better (and policy) to stick to VR and let the experts in the subject be refrenced. Eight88 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Found this [15], listing his releases and chart positions from 1926 onwards. It is possibly a fansite, but does show missing detail from J.Murrells book and ties in with the book also on common shared details. It states his sources as being from several reference books on music history Eight88 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Also from "Pop Memories - 1890 to 1954": Joel Whitburn. Top Artists Achievements - Bing Crosby no.1 with 36 number one hits. Most charted singles - Bing Crosby no. 1 with 336 charted singles. Biggest selling artists 1930 - 1939, Bing Crosby @ no.1. Biggest selling artists of 1940 - 1949, Bing Crosby @ no.1, Biggest selling artists 1950 - 1954, Bing Crosby @ No. 5. Eight88 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The only logical thing J. Murrells says is that there is an evidence of 29 million having been sold in US. Where do you think Crosby could have sold the rest of 270 million records, when you yourself are excluding three major markets Germany, France, Japan. And I'm quite certain that Crosby's target markets were simply US, Canada, UK and Australia. Yes, it's true that fewer artists were being marketed and I also agree that the market share was higher per artist, but can we use common sense for a moment please, there pretty much was no economy nor was there marketing in 90% of the globe until mid 50s. Even after mid 50s Crosby couldn't sell his records in many countries including Soviet Union, east Europe, China. And wherever the western music was not forbidden, spending money on records was the last thing in people's mind including in south/central America, India, Africa. So let's be realistic please, 50 million for the album White Christmas, or 50 million for the single is outright outrageous. Crosby may have been the biggest artists during the years you have above, but calling him the biggest artist back then, sales-wise it would translate into something like Green Day for nowadays, considering only 30 million in US. Even Elvis Presley couldn't have sold as much as he's managed to sell after mid 50s, if it wasn't for the US market for the most part (175 million in certified sales only). As for these publishers, I would personally avoid calling these people experts as both CNN and The Daily Telegraph seem to have experts like that, who are capable of publishing two very different figures for the same artist in two different articles either for the same day (CNN [16]. [17]) or just a few months apart (The Daily Telegraph [18],[19]) . I am really sorry, as much as I respect all your inquiries on Crosby, adding Crosby to the list with 300 million is beyond possibility. You could bring an administrator here, and have them read our discussion. If they believe, I don't make sense, let them add Crosby to the list and I will stay out of their way. However, I've been analyzing sales figures enough to recognize a spurious figure when I see one, and this is one of them. The 300 million for Crosby is at least 150% inflated. In other words, his actual figure should not surpass 100-120 million. Let's not waste anymore time please trying to convince each other otherwise. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Harout you are far off the mark if you think Crosby's sales of "White Christmas" are 'outright outrageous'. This is a record that constantly charted over a long period of time. It was number 1 in 1943 and then number 6 and then number 18 again in 1943. It reached number 5 in 1944, number 1 in 1945, number 1 in 1947 and then number 22 in 1947 and number 22 in 1948. The sales were so phenomenal that the die stamp had become worn out and it was decided that Bing should re-record it again on 19/03/1947. This version reached number 3 and then number 6 in 1948, number 5 in 1949, number 13 in 1950, number 13 in 1951, number 21 in 1953, number 21 in 1954, number 7 in 1955, number 34 in 1957, number 26 in 1960, number 12 in 1961 and number 38 in 1962. It also returned to the charts in 1998.

Written by Grapester

I give no credibility to reporters - regardless of who they work for, unless the quote physical sources for their data - most never do. I do however give credibility with publishers who have obtained their statistical information from the record industry, RIAA, Cashbox, Billboard, The American Society of Composers etc... I have also tried to be fair, in stating limitations of markets (as you picked up on), and quoted the increase of 100 million between 1960 and 1970 in sales (which you did not pick up on). The point of a discussion (although we both have abused this to a large extent), is to supply all the details as possible and allow all to assess. And this is all I have done, quoted as much factual info as I can find. I prefer factual information compared to possibilities and maybes. Finally, although I started off with no doubt as to his sales, your pushing and making me source other data, has placed doubts ... not conceding, it just needs more research. "That" is what it is all about - to openly learn. I will not be editing the article as yet, till there is sufficient knowledge Eight88 (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The RIAA Numbers are by disc and not by units sold therefore making them a fairly unreliable list since there could be a 4 disc box set that would be counted 4 sales per unit. Also, they only take into account United States sales. This article isn't exactly a credible source for record sales figures, but it's more all encompassing than the RIAA list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talkcontribs) 12:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Having now received a copy of Joel Whitburns book "Pop Memories: 1890-1954", it is extremely interesting in matching fact with some assumptions made. It comprehensively lists over 400 charting records by Bing Crosby. It also specifies elsewhere that the cost of a record was 30c in this period (Decca), so million sellers ($ back then)would have had to sell 3.3 million units to get to this status. He had 211 records that made the top 10 (White Christmas on many occasions). This book a well as Joseph Murrells state that the majority of hits in this period came from the movies (globally), and Bing Crosby was by far the biggest earning star of that period. Joel Whitburn specifies a global total of over 300 million. Another book, "Complete UK Hit Albums 1956 - 2005: Graham Betts" - which is during the tail end of Bing's career, shows Bing charting higher and longer in the UK than in the USA. Graham Betts also specifies a global total of 300 million. That is therefore 3 published sources stating 300 - 400 million,and one online source. That is sufficient to add to the chart list. Eight88 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have provided an explanation in countless ways that regardless of how many top-10 hits an artist has, top-10s do not necessarily affect sales unless those particular records spend many weeks within the top-20. And I don't understand what this statement It also specifies elsewhere that the cost of a record was 30c in this period (Decca), so million sellers ($ back then)would have had to sell 3.3 million units to get to this status above is supposed to prove. So let's say Crosby has sold some 29 million in US according to Joseph Murrells (as you have stated earlier within the discussion), and let's assume his sales in UK is about 20 million (which is highly doubtable with UKs then much smaller population) since I see here Crosby has had not only more hits in UK than in US, but also some of them seem to have spent longer period of time within the top-10. Supposedly, now we have say 50 million, where exactly do you suggest we pull the rest of 300 million (250 million)from ? I'm quite certain, this 250 million cannot be coming from south/central America nor could it be coming from Asian markets not to mention the former Soviet Union and the entire eastern Europe should be taken out the equation and I wouldn't want to discuss anything about the Indian and African (then) markets. 300 million is a very serious number which can't simply be covered with the help of English speaking territories only considering the world's (then) smaller population. I do believe, we are beginning to chew the same chewed gum, don't you think? --Harout72 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Harout, please see the earlier comments about this. Crosby's weeks in the charts for the bulk of his 383 hits was extensive.

Written by Grapester

Actually you have provided nothing. At no point have you provided any reference that disputes the references provided, and at no point have you supplied counter references to any alternative figure. All you have done is supply speculative analysis and basing non inclusion on that. As a fellow editor, I have supplied multiple references that meets criteria, and is published encyclopedic references. The policy on concensus is based on the given concensus by the experts - not concensus between fellow editors. If you do not agree with the references, you can add a dispute tag to them, but you cannot remove them just because you "think" the are not right. I can equally put up analysis on how the 300 million is achieveable based on the details known, but it is no more factual than your data, no less speculation, and no more authoritive. That is why we base it on references known. As you have not given a valid reason for deleting the references, I will add them back in. I will remind you of the 3RR rule also. Eight88 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have provided detailed analysis as to why the 300 million records is beyond possibility for someone like Bing Crosby. In fact, you have not provided a single highly reliable source, all of your sources are published books by authors who are not employed by highly regarded news services, which is all we accept here. Just because you claim that the sources provided by you are authenticated well researched publications it doesn't make them so. In addition, we don't accept sources like Songwriters Hall of Fame as they tend to exaggerate figures. If you could equally put up an analysis and prove that Crosby has actually sold as many records as claimed by your sources, please do so. By the way, the only person that needs to be reminded of WP:3RR is you since you clearly happen to have a history of violating it.--Harout72 (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but the sources provided meet the criteria for being VR. However, your detailed analysis still remains speculation and constitutes original research. As stated any times, you simply cannot remove sourced material, just because you believe it is not true.Eight88 (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Artists on this page are to be supported by highly regarded sources (news services), please do not ignore my months of hard work. I hate to repeat myself but the sources that you are providing are considered reliable only by you. In other words, researches conducted by independent publishers who are not part of highly regarded news services are not allowed. In addition, we are to scrutinize every single sales figure as I have stated above within this discussion page to avoid inflated sales figures regardless of who the figures are published by. And Bing Crosby clearly is one of them. --Harout72 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Harout, unfortunately your analysis is flawed and shows a complete lack of understanding of Crosby's chart success and general popularity from 1927 to circa 1956. With his chart success, it is clear that 300 million plus sales is not beyond Bing Crosby. His sales are 500 million plus.

Written by Grapester

Please review your comments for the following reasons - within this discussion page is at most a suggestion. One editor cannot dictate content requirements especially if they go against the object of the article. This article is not entitled "List of Best Selling Artists-excluding those pre RIAA, or does not appear in online certification databases". Equally, stating that I am the only person who considers the references as being verfiable is not correct - the correct statement is that you solely have considered them not acceptable as nobody else has ever commented on them (on this aticle). These books are used as references throughout wikipedia. I also refer back to your previous comment "I have supplied detailed analysis...". Please supply this detailed analysis, as so far all I have seen provided is the speculation detail - and there have been several of these, each contradicting the previous. I understand your stance on trying to clean up the article, but please consider that you have clouded your judgement in trying to do so. With absolutely no data or references at your disposal covering the period, how can you make claims that what you say is correct - everyone else is wrong. Please be a "good" editor in improving the article via following Wikipedia policy on allowing VR, as opposed to the current "I think ..." assessments. Eight88 (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is entitled List of best-selling music artists and therefore I put in as much effort as I do into trying to keep it just as the title suggests. I am not here to dictate, I simply have seen enough inflated figures published even by highly regarded news establishments which is what's forced me to begin to scrutinize all published figures. As for your statement the correct statement is that you solely have considered them not acceptable as nobody else has ever commented on them (on this aticle). These books are used as references throughout wikipedia, these books may be used as references by you throughout Bing Crosby related articles, and books of this kind on celebrities could be published by anybody in a modern free market based world, but that wouldn't necessarily make them reliable only because they are published materials. By the way, I have already provided detailed explanation (not a speculation as you suggest) as to why Crosby's sales can't be anywhere 300 million. As I have pointed out earlier, had Crosby's records sold more than 500,000 units in US, they would have appeared within the RIAA database decades after they were released as it seems to be the case with of all of his records that are visible in RIAA's database here. And finally, I do believe that this article looks much better and more credible than before I began cleaning it up. Consequently, I don't believe it makes me a bad editor only because my analysis suggests that Bing Crosby doesn't belong within the 300 million club. --Harout72 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Billboard recognise that Bing Crosby sold over half a billion albums. Please see below:

Please update Bing in the list of top sellers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapester (talkcontribs) 11:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the entire discussion and see my explanation on number one tracks before adding (above) list of unsourced number one songs and expecting editors to believe it. As for Crosby's spurious sales figure of 500 million, the number of the certifications in RIAA doesn't suggest major sales in US let alone in other parts of the world. We are to scrutinize all claimed figures here regardless who they are published by to avoid inflated figures, and if there isn't significant number of certification-awards supporting the claimed figures as it is in the case of Bing Crosby, they will not be added to the list. See the top of this talk page. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above comments and do adequate amounts of research. Popular music didn't commence in 1958 and it would be foolish to think so.

Written by Grapester

While there is no doubting that Bing Crosby was very successful, you appear to be making some assumptions of your own when it comes to his chart history. Firstly, you claim that he had 383 hits in the US. So, effectively you are assuming that every charting record he had (single or album) was a hit, which could hardly be the case. Many of his record undoubtably sold very little and charted poorly. Secondly, a lot of the sales information that we have is suspicious when considering that he has very few RIAA awards. For instance, numerous times above it was mentioned that Bing received an award in 1960 for selling 200 million records globally. The bulk of these should predate certifications. However, above its also been claimed in 1970 Bing also recieved and award for selling 300 million records. So, if this was the case, he must have sold 100 million records in the sixties, which would mean that he must have numerous RIAA certifications. These certifications simply don't exist. To have sold 500 million, as you are claiming, he must have sold another 200 million from the seventies to present. No RIAA awards were issued for these either. So...either he has hundreds of millions of uncertified RIAA-era sales...or the sales figures are incorrect.

Also consider this. He has 13.5 million RIAA sales. Based on this, its is highly unlikely that he has sold more than 20 million records in the US since RIAA awards began to be issued, and is even more unlikely to have sold more than 20 million in the rest of the world combined during the same time period. So for him to have sold 500 million records he must have already sold well over four hundred million records by 1958. No-one was claiming it then. Indeed, there is a steady rate of inflation in his total sales figures; 1960-200 million, 1970-300 million, 1982-400 million (According to J.Murrells), Present-500 million. The only reaction you can take to a pattern like this is extreme sceptism. Hitthat (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside Opinion

I am glad to see a group of dedicated editors working hard to improve this article. I noticed the request for assistance at WP:3O. I would be glad to offer an opinion if one of the editors would briefly summarize the main issues under consideration. Thanks! —Finn Casey 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be active discussion on a variety of issues surrounding this article. Thus, I am removing this page from my watchlist and trusting it to those involved. Feel free to contact me if the need for a third opinion arises again. —Finn Casey * * * 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No Bob Marley? No Cliff Richard?

Someone needs to sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources such as the books here and indeed our referenced article on Bob Marley indicate that he has sold somewhere in the region of 20 million records.
I didn't check on Cliff yet.  Chzz  ►  04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion above for Cliff Richard.--Harout72 (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Harout - it seems that you're replacing a highly reliable source from the highly reliable newspaper The Times with your own personal research.

Sorry, but that is simply not allowed. That goes against wikipedia regulations I'm afraid. The Times is a reliable source and until you can provide a reliable source disproving the claim, Cliff Richard will have to be reinstated. (your own research is not permitted nor is it acceptable). Once I've made the 10 edits required for a new user to edit a locked article, I shall correct this mistake.

As for Bob Marley, I shall research that a little further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talkcontribs) 14:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Certification databases are reliable, and I don't replace highly reliable sources with my own research, I simply verify the published figures. And 10 million in UK certified sales is not enough to suggest that 250 million claimed by The Times is correct, whereas Richard's sales is quite poor everywhere else in the world including the US market.--Harout72 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're sayting but we really can't add them up like that> I've been picked up on doing things like that previously before I signed up for an account; it DOES count as your own research.

We're only supposed to state what we can verify in reliable sources. The Times is a reliable source - adding up certifications from a handful of countries is classed as personal research however, and cannot be used. Therefore, unless you can provide another reliable source claiming a lower figure, Cliff Richards MUST be reinstated near the top of this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talkcontribs) 10:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See my reply above.--Harout72 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What we can determine for ourselves is totally irrelevant when it comes to wikipedia. As I have said it has happened to me before, and now it will happen to you too. It may be frustrating but we really do have to follow the rules here.

All we can do is quote reliable sources here. That's all. Your own personal research is totally irrelevant. Regardless of how things appear, The Times is an incredibly reliable source and the quoted figure is 250 million. Therefore, once I am able to, I shall be amending this article.

Unless you have a reliable source quoting a lower figure, then I shall reinstate Cliff Richard and revert any and all edits you make that remove him. WiseNinja1 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WiseNinja, per WP:TRUTH  Chzz  ►  11:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, there really ARE situations exactly like that. There really are times when you're the only one talking sense; times where the point you're making is so undeniable and irrefutable only a moron would attempt to argue with it; times where everyone logical seems to have disappeared. In times like those you must make your case and stick by it - sometimes irrefutable evidence and logic isn't enough, and you really do have to repeat yourself time and time again.

This isn't really one of those times though - I'm just following wikipedia rules. We only report what we can reliably source. That's all.

To be honest, I find it a little offensive that an article depicting situations like that is described as "humourous". Obviously there will be many morons out there who steadfastly believe they're in the right when they're clearly in the wrong - goodness knows I've had to deal with many of them. But sometimes, that one little guy on his own, going against consensus and a dozen regular users, really IS the only one speaking the truth. You see situations crop up like this all the time when discussing nationality for example - many people can't see that it's citizenship that affects nationality rather than ancestry. And how about the time when the Thomas Edison page declared that he was the inventor of the lightbulb? Barely anyone spoke the truth there, but they persevered against stupidty and irrelevant consensus. There are countless examples like this.

Remember now - I'm just following the rules, and that's all. Until you can reliably prove to me that Cliff Richard didn't sell 250 million albums, then I'll leave the article alone. Original research doesn't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That can be demonstrated very easily by certifications if you look up to the certifications gathered above. Maybe you need to spend a little bit more time understanding certifications; while you cannot gauge actual sales figures from them, they give an extremely clear picture of the region they lie in. They are also the most reliable source on sales available; they come from the Recording Industry Associations themselves. And also, they are not being used to refuse Cliff Richard a place on the list; they are being used to prevent him from being posted with a ridiculously inflated source. 250 million is impossible; I can't see why you cannot grasp this. Led Zepplin (for example) has 110 platinum certifications in the US alone; thats 110 million albums right there, just in the US, more than 9 times the certifications we have for Cliff Richard combined, but even they haven't sold 250 million records. If there is a source suggesting fifty million, then Cliff Richard will be added to the list, but if you insist on adding him with 250 million records sold your edits will be reverted. Hitthat (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that this is your own personal research, whereas mine is not. On that basis alone I can claim the highground here.

Once again I will remind you that your own research is entirely irrelevant on wikipedia. I've seen many people fall down on these things before so I don't see why we can pick and choose. For example, over on the best selling video game franchise page, adding up total sales for the GTA series produces a figure of over 90 million sales. Despite this, an outdated 70 million figure is used.

The same has happened to Charles Dickens on the list of best selling authors. He is listed for having only 200 million sales, despite the fact that A Tale Of Two Cities has sold well over 200 million by itself.

These pages are victims of wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources - our own personal research HAS to be disregarded thanks to wikipedia's rules. We do not get to pick and choose - if we are not permitted to affect the figures of Charles Dickens and the GTA series using personal research then we are not permitted to affect Cliff Richard's with it, as per "other stuff exists" -

Put simply, either the sales figures of GTA and Charles Dickens are put up to their ACTUAL figures, or Cliff Richard is reinstated thanks to the reliable source giving his total sales figures (ie. follow the rules). Remember, this is an encyclopaedia - we HAVE to keep things consistent, we cannot pick and choose whatever source suits how we feel. Personal research is either accepted everywhere or it is rejected everywhere, there is no middle ground. If you are respectable editors then you will either step aside and allow me to reinstate Cliff Richard, or you will aid me in improving the other articles I have mentioned. Don't be lazy now.

Oh, and Chzz - NOW I'm the sole bearer of The Truth. WiseNinja1 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Van Morrison

Morrison should be included in the article as he has sold over 70 million records according to Jay Leno (who, I'm sure, would not get a fact like this wrong) on, but cannot be referenced because this source is YouTube and should not be used on wikipedia, eventhough the video is posted be his official channel. I have searched for another source, but can't find one. Can anyone help? Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong and/or questionable certified sales figures!

Harout72 (and maybe few other editors) counted and included in this article available certified sales for selected artists (The Beatles, MJ, Elvis, ABBA, Queen ...) but their figures are wrong and/or questionable and there are perfect examples of original research and therefore disallowed. Explanation: Many countries changed certifications levels for gold & platinum awards during years and for example from Sweden's case which was discussed before, I know that Harout72 insist (!?) in using wrong, without reliable sources figures for platinum and gold certficication levels changes in his counting process. Same goes for many other countries. As a music enthusiastic I collected official documents about history of certification levels changes (for many countries around the world) via official IFPI contacts but unfortunately I can't use e-mailed documents as a source because those e-mailed official documents doesn't appear on official sites. To avoid potential personal attacks and insinuations (against me) I again simply ask Harout72 to provide reliable sources for history of certifications levels changes for every included country in this article. Without that all available certification figures included in this article assembled in Harout72's counting process are not verifiable and that is against article policies, therefore disallowed. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Here you are again, accusing me of doing everything wrong. I am always wrong and you are right. Is that what this is about again? You collected official documents, unfortunately, you can't use them here. You can't use them here because you were never replied by the associations or because we won't believe your made up figures? I doubt you don't want to post them here due to WP:RS, you certainly didn't think that way while trying to convince everybody on Sweden's figures in your previous arguments. And please stop this bad habit of yours, going around accusing people. While, some of the music industry associations post the certified sales figures immediately next to certification-awards including Finland, Canada, France others, have their changes in certification levels posted within the page of certifications including Finland, Brazil, Argentina, Spain (at the bottom of their pages), Germany, Switzerland (at the top). The levels have never changed in US. And the rest of them have been published in earlier Billboard magazine-issues.--Harout72 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Your insults and insinuations won't comment. I asked normal question regarding reliable sources for history of certifications levels changes for EVERY country included in this article because without that certified figures cannot be verified. I repeat correct history of certifications levels changes in Sweden can be checked at IFPI in Sweden and every normal person interested in truth can check that. BTW FYI in USA there was changes regarding certifications levels but for singles and digital singles and videos. For example for singles before 1989. Gold was 1,000,000 and Platinum 2,000,000 copies... If you don't believe don't bother with answering... Besides contacting RIAA there are many reliable sources on Internet about that so... Anyway, at the end of day the point is that for some countries you don't have reliable sources for history of certifications levels changes so some of your figures cannot be verified, and that is against article policies, therefore disallowed. Unfortunately, there are other problems with your certifications figures and sales numbers but with this way of discussion it is pointless to say anything. You are obviously owner of this article and people with other opinions, regardless arguments simply can't do anything. It's really waste of time! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For example let's look MJ's figures in Austria: Thriller is certified 8×Platinum (last year) and that represents 400,000 copies; Dangerous is certified 4×Platinum and that represents 200,000 copies; Bad is certified 4×Platinum and that represents 200,000; History-Past, Present & Future, Book 1 is certified 2×Platinum and that represents 100,000 copies etc.
Only with this 4 albums (there are more certified albums/singles) you will get 900,000 copies but in this article I see made-up 885,000 figure! All figures that I mentioned can be checked at IFPI Austria but that is original research, but if you are really interested in TRUTH ask IFPI Austria here regarding mentioned albums (if you don't believe me). Harout72's figures are also result of original research but his figures are simply wrong and you can also check that at IFPI Austria (same contact as above). BTW in Austria (like in some other countries) albums are certified on release date so for old albums -> old certification rules, new albums -> new rules and you can't know that by default if you just look certifications on official site. I can analyse every country mentioned in this article to show that many Harout72's certifications figures are wrong but all my work would be result of original research and therefore disallowed. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits appear to be disruptive more than anything else. Kiac (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Z.K. HAL. I don't like the way that every other article, even the other "best-selling" articles closely adhere to the rules of wikipedia yet this one does not. It's unencyclopaedic, and on the basis of "other stuff exists", I believe we should remove alot of the certifications.

I agree that many of the certifications listed are not really verifiable. Not only that, I agree that many of them are outright wrong. Just using your own common sense you can see that the figures for The Beatles' sales in the UK is wrong. You yourself Harout have estasblished elsewhere that Oasis have sold 17.5 million albums in the UK, and I very much doubt that Oasis have sold 10 million more albums than The Beatles in the UK.

It would be best if we stopped using original research altogether, and went back to following the rules. WiseNinja1 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Were you paying attention to the notes provided under the tables? You might notice a couple of things there; firstly the BPI only started issuing certifications after the beatles had broken up, so obviously not all of their sales will be certified. I don't understand why you think certifications are not vertifiable. They are official awards issued by the Recording Industry Associations and taken from the the Recording Industry Associations websites themselves (with the exception of France). They are 100% vertified. They are not original research. Certainly, they have limitations, but they can be used to get a rough idea of where sales lie, and thats what they are used for. Your issues with certifications appear to come from the fact that we have used them to show that Cliff Richard couldn't possibly have sold 250 million albums, and it appears to be leading you to claim that the Recording Industry Associations, who keep track of the sales in the first place, are not vertifiable. There may be the need for some re-calculating to account for changes in the values of certifications in the totals used in the articles, but these values are neither unvertified or orginal research. Hitthat (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken - I am not opposed to using certifications because they remove Cliff Richard, I am opposed to using them because this article seems to think it is exempt from the rules of wikipedia. It is not.

The GTA series has sold 90 million copies, not 70 million. Charles Dickens has at least twice as many sales as he is quoted for. The Harry Potter series has sold closer to 500 million copies than 400. Yet I am not allowed to correct this thanks to wikipedia's rules.

On the basis of "other stuff exists" alone we are supposed to reinstate Richard - this is an encyclopedia after all, we must be consistent. Not only that but reinstating him would be following the rules, as we have a highly reliable source quoting his figure to be much higher.

Once again I will say this - either you stand aside and allow me to reinstate Cliff Richard as we are SUPPOSED to, or you aid me in changing the other articles. You cannot call yourself a respectable editor if you do not choose one of those options.

And actually, it IS original research. You are essentially adding them up and coming to your OWN conclusions upon reading multiple sources. You are looking at many different certifications and coming to a personal conclusion on the picture that they all paint. THAT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Unless you have found a reliable source that has done the research and compiled the total sales and come to a conclusion on the various certifications, they are to be disregarded. YOU as an editor are not permitted to do it yourself, and you're not allowed to pass judgement on reliable sources here either.

I will be reinstating Cliff Richard shortly. Any and all edits removing him will be reverted (unless you can find another reliable source giving another figure, that is). But this is only the beginning - either all certifications are to be removed from this page, or you and others will aid me in altering the other articles mentioned. Besides, the certifications aren't all that reliable. You've already shown how utterly useless the figure for The Beatles in the UK is, and Z.K. HAL has shown up many other glaring errors. Not only that but many major markets are missed out time and time again, as well as many smaller markets.

What you are doing is original research, is unreliable, is against wikipedia's rules and is unencyclopedic. It must stop and the certifications must go. WiseNinja1 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is being followed here, all artists as well as certifications on the list are supported by reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with verifying sales figures. We are not looking to find 250 million in certified sales for Cliff Richard, but we need to see sufficient amount of evidence in sales. And in the case of Richard as I have stated before, 250 million figure could not be achieved with UK's market alone, it's a figure that needs the support of many other markets including US market. Therefore, to avoid filling this page with inflated figures, we should not add Richard to the list, at least not with a ludicrous figure of 250 million. What we are doing here is not original research, see [this section] within WP:OR. If you are going to begin an edit war as you are stating above, then I must warn you that you will be reported.--Harout72 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 I am glad that you FINALLY contacted swedish IFPI. :) Q.E.D. Unfortunately among others your swedish figures are again incorrect and I can irrefutably explain/prove that later but first of all your new USA certification-figures for all artists are wrong ( In USA (like I wrote before) for singles before 1989 Gold was 1,000,000 and Platinum 2,000,000 copies but from 1989 for ALL singles regardless release date GOLD is 500,000 and PLATINUM is 1,000,000. So for example Jackson's single Billie Jean was certified Gold by RIAA in 1983 and that represents 1,000,000. 6 years later (on 02/14/1989) Billie Jean was re-certified Platinum and that again represents 1,000,000 (not 2,000,000 like you counted!). Actually on same date 02/14/1989 many Jackson's singles were re-certified applying new certification-award-levels so at the end "I just can't stop loving you" from album Bad is only Jackson's single which is still certified ONLY under old certification rules --> Gold in 1987 and that represents 1,000,000. Another example... Beatles' single Hey Jude released in 1968 was certified gold in 1968 and that represents 1,000,000. On 02/17/1999 Hey Jude was first re-certified Platinum = 1,000,000 and on same date Hey Jude also recieved new certification award 4×Platinum and that is 4,000,000 copies/units (not 8,000,000 like you counted). Same goes for all others Beatles, Elvis' etc. singles. So, I repeat, when you count certification-awards in USA for all singles certified prior 1989 you must apply old certification-award-levels rules and for all singles certified from 1989 regardless release date you must apply new certification-award-levels rules. This is 100% correct!
--Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you need to begin supporting your arguments with reliable sources and most importantly change the way you approach other editors. Second, the changes in Certification-award-levels do not affect the records released prior to the date of the certification-volume-reduction regardless of whether they have already been certified once or never (as you are suggesting). To prove this point of mine, take a look here at Jackson's certifications on "Billie Jean" single for example. The single has received its first gold certification on 04/04/1983 for selling 1,000,000, then, the single has received its platinum certification on 02/14/1989 for selling 2,000,000 (the total is 2 million at this point); in other words, I never counted additional 2 million as you are accusing me of doing in this statement above: So for example Jackson's single Billie Jean was certified Gold by RIAA in 1983 and that represents 1,000,000. 6 years later (on 02/14/1989) Billie Jean was re-certified Platinum and that again represents 1,000,000 (not 2,000,000 like you counted!). Then, RIAA has issued an additional gold certification to the single "Billie Jean" on 11/08/2005 representing an additional 1,000,000 units (that makes the total for "Billie Jean" 3,000,000). Now, I'm hoping that you are aware that RIAA never issues Gold certifications to those single-records (released beginning January 1989) after a single-record has already once received platinum. Now, look at Jackson's single "Thriller" which has received its first gold-award on 12/04/1989 for selling total of 1,000,000 and immediately after platinum-award for selling total of 2,000,000. Now, although, RIAA never issues gold certifications after issuing platinum certifications to those single-records released beginning 1989, RIAA does that with those single-records that have been released prior to 1989. And the single "Thriller" has received another two gold-certifications after 1989's platinum-award. One comes in on 11/08/2005 representing an additional 1,000,000 units based on the older gold-award-level (total of 3,000,000 at this point), and the other comes in on 08/21/2009 representing an additional 1,000,000 units making the total 4,000,000. Had RIAA issued another two platinum-awards after the first platinum (which would contain the volume of older Platinum-award), that would've meant another 2,000,000 units each time, but the single has sold only another 1,000,000 units by 11/08/2005 and another 1,000,000 by 08/21/2009; therefore, basing on older award-levels, they have issued gold. By the way, I have already verified this information through very reliable people.--Harout72 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha! What are you talking about! Very soon you will see that your calculations are joke. You did the same thing with swedish certification figures and at the end I was right. You can't beat THE TRUTH. Billie Jean is certified for selling 1,000,000 copies (physical) and that's it. Platinum certification from 1989 is the same award as gold from 1983. That Platinum award is only re-certification under new rules. Billie Jean is certified by RIAA for selling only 1,000,000 copies in USA. CONTACT RIAA AND ASK THEM! For example read this RIAA press release with picture from 2005 published on official Elvis Presley site. RIAA presented special award to Graceland because Elvis Presley surpasses 50 million in US singles sales. Now, 4 years later you counted (?!?!) around 100m singles (225m with albums) for Elvis in USA because you counted Elvis' certifications with wrong certification-awards-levels rules for singles (see above). Also you can look this article on official Elvis' site: You can read there: "This list of certifications is based upon current standards: 500,000 copies for a gold single or album, 1 million copies for a platinum single or album." Anyway, there are so many other ways to prove that your new USA certifications are WRONG! CONTACT RIAA! And BTW Billie Jean was certified gold on 11/08/2005 but that was digital single and that represnts 100,000 digital sigles because in 2005. gold for digital singles was 100.000. Today gold for digital single is 500.000. All my claims can be checked at RIAA and all your claims are complete nonsense and every single normal person can check that. CONTACT RIAA! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Also your certification figure for Thriller (single) is nonsense. Thriller was certified Gold on 12/04/1989 and that represents 500,000 and on same date Thriller recieved Platinum certification and that represents 1,000,0000 copies so at the end of day Thriller was certified for 1,000,000 sold copies total. On 11/08/2005 Thriller was certified gold but that certification is for digital single (type is DI and that is digital, check your source link again) and that represents sale of 100,000 because in 2005. gold for digital singles was still 100,000 (Read this: Also Thriller gold certification from 08/21/2009 is for Mastertone (type is MT --> check your source link again) and that represnts 500,000. So you have 1.6m certification by RIAA for Thriller (single) and that includes 1,000,000 physical + 100,000 digital + 500,000 mastertone. Anyway FYI according to official Nielsen Soundscan numbers digital single Thriller was sold 2m+ copies. All my claims can be checked at RIAA and Nielsen Soundscan. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before you need to change your attitude before expressing yourself any further as you sound rather childish. If you want to help out, bring your suggestions to my attention intelligently. Otherwise, your behavior is quite disruptive, and your further comments will simply be ignored. Now, you, yourself stated above: Anyway FYI according to official Nielsen Soundscan numbers digital single Thriller was sold 2m+ copies, which perfectly correlates to "Thriller"'s two gold-awards, one received on 11/08/2005 representing an additional 1,000,000 units based on the older gold-award-level, and the other on 08/21/2009 representing an additional 1,000,000 units making the total digital sales 2 million units. Although, digital-award-level was 100,000 for gold at the time the first Digital-gold was issued, it's clear that they have treated both the digital-gold-award and the Mastertone-gold-award with the volume of the former standard gold-award (1 million units each), see this here for better understanding, otherwise, it would have read 5x platinum based on previous digital-award-level. How else could the digital-sales have reached 2 million?. As for Elvis, the anomaly stands within the way they state in Presley's site: This list of certifications is based upon current standards: 500,000 copies for a gold single or album, 1 million copies for a platinum single or album. How can what they state be correct when Presley's first single "Hard Headed Woman" among many other singles has received its gold-award in 1958-1988, when at the time gold-award-level for singles were gold=1,000,000 and platinum=2,000,000. And that the same single among others has received platinum-award representing 2,000,000 units according to older platinum-level for singles. Therefore, artist-sites are not regarded as reliable. However, RIAA may have for some inexplicable reason issued gold-certification-awards to those Presley's singles that were never certified before '89 applying the award-levels of newer gold-awards. I would have to verify this before I changed anything because RIAA among other music associations in the world issue awards to older releases applying whatever the award-level has been at the time that specific record was released.--Harout72 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Look I want to help but unfortunately normal coversation with you is almost impossible. For some reasons you completely ignore everything I wrote regardless source, arguments or whatever... See for example swedish certifications: you attacked me, insulted me, ridiculed me etc. and at the end you contacted swedish IFPI to get the same document, the same numbers which you ridiculed before?!?! Or for example you wrote that certification-levels have never changed in US (see your second post (22:04, 21 October 2009) in this topic) and what did I wrote? etc... Anyway, all my claims regarding RIAA singles certification are 100% correct. Elvis' HARD HEADED WOMAN (RIAA certification for Hard Headed Woman) was certified Gold by RIAA on 08/11/1958 and that represents 1,000,000 copies. On 03/27/1992 same single was only re-certified (under new rules) for same sale of 1,000,000 copies so single recieved Platinum status. Regarding certified numbers that Platinum certification from 1992 is equal to Gold from 1958 and at the end total certifed sales for HARD HEADED WOMAN single in US is 1,000,000 copies. This is same as for Billie Jean etc. If you don't believe me, you (or anybody else) can ask/contact RIAA regarding this or any other Elvis, The Beatles or MJ's singles. Also for Elvis you can contact Graceland/Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. (EPE) (e-mail: Graceland@Elvis.Com) and simply ask them what represents platinum award for single HARD HEADED WOMAN or any other Elvis' single. They have many RIAA awards and on each award there is comment regarding certified sales. BTW Elvis' single from 1956 HOUND DOG/DON'T BE CRUEL was certified 4×Platinum in 1999 source and that represents 4,000,0000 copies. Read this official RIAA news "... Presley’s 1956 classic “Hound Dog/Don’t Be Cruel” becomes one of the top certified singles of all time with sales of four million..." (BTW RIAA forgot another 4×platinum single - Beatles' Hey Jude but...) BTW did you read this. Read complete article. For you (?!) that is not reliable indication that all your Elvis' figures in US are wrong? You really think that Elvis official site (created by the Estate of Elvis Presley/The Elvis Presley Trust) invented RIAA special award for 50 million sold singles and all that RIAA press release?! Also, your last comment/analyse regarding Thriller's digital sales is wrong and you can also check that at RIAA. Look this again: every certification has format, certification date and TYPE. RIAA certification for digital singles in 2005 were 100,000 copies for gold (criteria for digital singles)and Thriller digital single was certified gold (on 11/08/2005) --> 100,000 digital copies sold. That was in 2005. Thriller mastertone was certified also gold on 08/21/2009 and that represents 500,000 copies (criteria for mastertones. According to Nielsen Soundscan Thriller digital single sold 2m+ copies (almost 1m this year) and Thriller mastertone sold another 500,000+ copies. According to Nielsen Soundscan numbers and RIAA certification rules for digital singles Thriller and 10 more MJ's singles are eligible for (re)certification, Thriller for 2×Platinum (2m), 4 (soon 5) singles for Platinum (each sold 1m+ copies) and 6 more for Gold (sold in more than 500,000 copies). Vast majority of those sales are due Jackson's death. MJ sold 11.3m digital singles this year (new record in one year and that figure of course represents complete MJ's digital catalog); Lady Gaga is close (11.1m this year). Important: I provided Soundscan numbers (without source) only as information/trivia so... And at the end... It is original research but we can ask any wikipedia administrator to check all my claims regarding US certifications at RIAA (contact via e-mail with cc at my and your e-mail address if you want) and they can BAN me forever from Wikipedia if I wrote single wrong figure on this page. Or we can ask Billboard ( There is possibillity that your question will be answered and published here. Sorry for long comment! Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this source that you provided above, very helpful. It looks like RIAA may be doing what you're saying with some records and doesn't with others. It looks to me that all those single-records that once have received gold-certification before 1989 and reach the present single double-platinum-award-level, RIAA first turns the older gold-award into present platinum-certification-award before posting/issuing the second present platinum-award. Because they don't seem to have done this with ABBA's or Queen's or even Madonna's singles for example, I guess because those singles are far from reaching the following older certification-level. I will correct Elvis' and The Beatles' singles certified sales as you do have a point. And regarding Michael Jackson's digital certifications on "Thriller" for example, while I'm aware of the digital-award-levels, if the single "Thriller" has sold 2 million in digital sales, isn't it possible that RIAA may have treated these two digital-gold-awards as 1 million each? I mean, wouldn't the first digital-award issued in 2005 have read multi-platinum at least? And where exactly in Nielsen Soundscan's web site do you look at these sales figures? I don't quite understand why you don't want to post the sources for these figures. How will that be original research, we are only at the discussion page? Listen, with regards to the Swedish award-levels I never ignored your source, I simply could not open it for some reason, were you sent that the same document? By the way, I was being truthful when I said that I had read Swede's award-levels in the Billboard magazine, but apparently the levels had just changed as I remember it was in the beginning of 2002. Anyways, looks like I have more work to do, and I still can't believe all those inflated figures that have been tossed about for all five artists within the table, especially the 1 billions.--Harout72 (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ABBA, Queen, Madonna's etc. singles with only prior-1989 certification are certified under old rules and technically (from 1989+) they are eligible for re-certification (old gold --> new platinum; old platinum --> new 2×platinum) but labels must request new certification and singles must go through the new process of auditing.
Nielsen Soundscan's figures are not public (except those published by Billboard, press etc.) so unfortunately I can't give you a source (but, trust me all my soundscan's figures are 100% correct). Here you can read that digital song Thriller crosssed 2m in paid downloads: ... His 1984 smash "Thriller" tops the 2 million mark in paid downloads this week, boosted by its annual Halloween resurgence. "Thriller" is only the second song released prior to 1990 to reach this sales level, following Journey's 1981 opus "Don't Stop Believin'" .... BTW 2 million digital sale for song Thriller are monitored by Nielsen SoundScan and RIAA give awards with type DI for digital singles. Mastertones/ringtones are monitored by Nielsen RingScan, and ringtone Thriller sold 500,000+ copies and RIAA give awards with type MT for mastertones/ringtones. Previously you quoted article from March 2009 (when MJ was still alive) and then Thriller's total was 1,159k downloads and Billie Jean's 864k (both figures are for digital songs). 3+ years earlier, in November 2005 MJ received gold awards for 2 mentioned digital songs (+ DSTYGE; sold 100,000+ copies each then; actually prior certification in October 2005 Thriller's total was ~ 161k copies). In 2005 only 22 songs sold more than 500k units each and none in 2004 (source), also in 2005 only 2 songs (first time ever) exceeded the 1 million sales mark (source).
About Sweden, yes it is the same document (I got it from swedish IFPI official Charlotte Appeltofft; document's original name: Guld Platina gränser genom åren.pdf) but now that is not important anymore.
Anyway, I appreciate your hard work and dedication on this article. Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sold at least 10 million records since he past away, his total should be updated to 760 million. Also, he has sold more records then Elvis or the Beatles, the 1 billion number is insane, who really believes this anyway? Elvis sold most of his records since his death, and the Beatles sold most since they there break up. Taking into account the growing middle classes in India, China etc. who are ten times more into Michael Jackson then the Beatles (and forget about Elvis he was mostly popular in the USA) and only now have money to buy records (digital and cd) MJ's sale will rise very quick in the years and decades to follow. He should break the 1.5 billion mark somewhere around 2035 - 2039 (it took the beatles and elvis also around 30 years to double up). If people are not updating yearly numbers (from ALL over the world) then we wont see this historical numbers on wikipedia from the greatest entertainer and more then that, that has ever lived and will live.

Iron Maiden Official Wikipedia English - incorrect number of sales category

To the best selling music artist site amninistrator, the cited figure of band's number of sales is incorrect. You state that Maiden is at the level of over 70 mln record sales, but in fact it's a bit higher. Please, check the official source links for Maiden sales on english Wiki. According to OFFICIAL Band's Site [1] in Band-Timeline sublink, in the brief biogram there's the 75 mln for EMI catalogue only, check out just [2] and more accurate proper data source:[3] another one - professional journalist.[4] Not enought, here you are [5] once more[6] special one[20] another one[21], few next[22][23]&[24] some of[25][26][27][28]if you still not satisfied check out just[29][30][31] sorces from popular press kit[32][33][34][35].

I think Maiden is still ignored, underrated and descending in the bandnotes , sad but true - the number of official sources with the "over 100 mln sales score" for Maidens, are still growing in the www. It's like this 'cos so often band's officialbios and representative notes are based on narrow marketing policy of EMI Records, just FOR THEM BACK - CAT. sales trespassed 75 mln this year (with 25 albums). CBS, Universal(nowadays), CMC, Epic, Legacy, Metal-Is, Sanctuary or Portrait, have been released their reissued record worldwide, too. Summary results from whole the distro-sites trespassed the threshold of 100 mln sales 17 months ago!!!

If you're honest and bit pro - PLEASE, check all these sources out, especially WIKIPAGE for IRON MAIDEN in English. Some of results may vary, but the essence is just the truth. THE MAIDEN FANS SOCIETY OVERSEAS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's important to understand that the figures here on this list and everywhere else at wikipedia can only be supported by third party reliable sources (see WP:RS), and that immediately leaves the Iron Maiden's official site out. That said, most of the sources above are not reliable including this and also this both of which are taken from wikipedia; therefore, they cannot be used. You have; however, provided two sources that are reliable, one by Regina Leader-Post and the other by The Daily Telegraph. Both these mentioned articles; by the way, are published months before the article by The Sun is, which currently supports Iron Maiden's sales figure on the list. Looking at Iron maiden's certifications in the following markets, one can tell that they have not had astronomical sales anywhere to reach 100 million records that easily:
US certified sales: 7.3 million
Canadian Certified sales: 1.6 million
UK certified sales: 2.3 million
German Certified sales: 2.1 million
French certified sales: 1.6 million
Finnish certified sales: 193,316
Brazilian certified sales: 260,000
Swedish certified sales: 320,000
It seems that even the 70 million in sales reported by The Sun is clearly exaggerated; however, since it's a figure that seems to be closer to their actual sales than the 100 million reported by Regina Leader-Post and The Daily Telegraph, it's best to stick to the source which provides the more credible figure, and that's the 70 million by The Sun.--Harout72 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

there offical website says 70 million to no need to use the sun —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

cat atevems

what happened to cat stevens. you didnt give the total sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Refer to the archived section for Cat Stevens here.--Harout72 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Why is Prince no longer included in this list? He has sold well over 100 million albums & used to be included in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had discussions before about Prince, refer to these two archived discussions [36], [37]. If you come across any reliable sources for Prince which claim sales of 80-90 million, don't hesitate to bring them to my attention.--Harout72 (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is Abba still in the top 5 of best selling artists. Article says that only they have only 46 million available sales. How can you estimate their sales all the way to 370 million when they only have 46 million of certified sales.

EMINEM Worldwide Record Sales 112 Million+

Eminem Worldwide Album Sales: (2009)

The Slim Shady LP: 9.1 Million The Marshall Mathers LP: 22.2 Million The Eminem Show: 20.5 Million 8 Mile Road: 9.1 Million Encore: 10.5 Million Curtain Call: 7.5 Million Re-Up: 2.5 Million Relapse 2.8 Million+

Total Album Sales: 84.2 Million

Best Selling Worldwide Singles/Downloads (Top 5): (2009)

Lose Yourself: 6,450,000 Without Me: 6,100,000 Stan: 5,500,000 The Real Slim Shady: 5,100,000 Just Lose It: 4,700,000

Record Sales: 112 Million+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talkcontribs) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the points are supposed to represent on that web site; however, I wouldn't consider "" a reliable source. As far as the figures of albums and the singles go (provided above) in comparison with the figures what Eminem's certifications suggest, I'd say the figures above are rather inflated. Here is a look at Eminem's certified sales on albums, the following markets should cover 85% of the regions:
  • Slim Shady-LP: 4,000,000 in US, 1,000,000+ in entire European continent, 200,000 in Canada, 70,000 in Australia, I see no certified sales in Brazil, Argentina or Mexico. The total for these regions is 5,300,000 in certified sales.
  • The Marshall Mathers-LP: 10.2 in US, 6,000,000 in the entire European continent, 800,000 in Canada, 280,000 in Australia, 100,000 in Brazil, 150,000 in Mexico. The total for these regions is 17,530,000 in certified sales and actual sales combined.
  • The Eminem Show-LP: 9.8 in US, 4,000,000 in the entire European continent, 1,000,000 in Canada, 560,000 in Australia, 50,000 in Brazil, 75,000 in Mexico, 40,000 in Argentina. The total for these regions is 15,525,000 in certified sales and actual sales combined.
  • Encore-LP: 4,000,000 in US, 2,000,000 in the entire European continent, 420,000 in Australia, 50,000 in Mexico, 20,000 in Argentina. The total for these region is 6,500,000 in certified sales.
  • Curtain Call-LP:2,000,000 in US, 2,000,000 in the entire European continent, 210,000 in Australia, 50,000 in Brazil. The total for these regions is 4,300,000.
  • Relapse-LP I see no major certified sales yet. Just 70,000 in Australia and 10,000 in Austria, 30,000 in Switzerland, 15,000 in Belgium. So, not even 150,000 units for these regions.
As one can see, the certified sales figures for albums-when compared on individual bases-immediately disagree with the figures that are provided above for album sales.--Harout72 (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Harout, that is not a reliable source for such a ridiculous claim.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous claim???? They are certainly not inflated. Interscope are not certifying Eminems albums at the moment thats why they haven't been certified yet!!, i can provide enougth links that prove the exact sales for all them albums listed above and could hunt down a few sites that prove the sales of the singles. It's pretty obvious that "Lose Yourself" being one of the most succesfull singles of all time has sold very much.

Eminem has sold over 80 Million albums[38], and well over 30 million singles/downloads, "Lose Yourself" and "Without Me" alone stack up over 12 million sales and thats just two of the many many singles.



[41] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Theres sources for his albums sales & i can provide proof of his singles sales if you want them???

AJS2050, I'll make two comments about your edits. First, do not remove other editors' comments as you have removed my comments in this edit of yours to make your comments more believable, that's vandalism and the next time you do that, you will be reported. Second, you need to learn to distinguish between reliable sources and unreliable sources. And none of your three recent sources can be regarded as reliable, not to mention that I don't see those three sources mentioning anything about 112 million records for Eminem, all I see is array of inflated album figures with an exception of the figure of 6 million for the album Curtain Call: The Hits in this source which correlates perfectly with what the certifications suggest.
By the way, when they state that Eminem has sold 80 million albums, they are speaking of his worldwide sales, which means albums, singles, videos. If he's sold as many singles as you believe, why would they choose to leave such a huge figure out and mention only album sales? Even the sum of the inflated albums-sales-figures within your unreliable sources above don't come anywhere close to 80 million, add up his inflated album-figures and see if for yourself that when Europe Music Awards in this source states 80 million albums, they mean all his records not albums only, although that's the term they use.--Harout72 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, i understand what your saying and i respect it all, but you have to realise that Eminems albums havent been certified since 2006. Curtain Call just recently on the soundscan website surpassed 3.0 million in the u.s. and yet is still only 2x platinum. "The Marhall Mathers LP" has sold over 10.1 million copies in the u.s. and is still awaiting diamond certification after 3 years. All the sales in the U.S. can be found on the soundscan website. Relapse is a great example, everyone knows it is the 2nd best selling album of 2009 in the u.s. this year so far, selling 1,533,000 copies so far, and yet hasn't been certified. As for worldwide, Relapse hasn't been certified in the UK, where it has sold almost 400,000 copies, and was the fastest selling album in the first 10 months of this year.

Eminem has sold 80 million albums, if you add the albums totals up without certifications you will see this. Singles/downloads sales are well above 12 million, as i said "Lose Yourself" and "Without Me" reached 6 million each, 12 weeks at number one on the billboard chart, not to mention the sales of other singles such as "The Real Slim Shady". That puts uncertified sales at over 92 million alone.

If anything i think they should change the title of this page and say, "Besy Selling Certified Music Artists", in which i would agree with your statement above, otherwise everything on the page, and i'm sure its the same for other artists aswell, is completly wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

All records, once they reach either Gold or Platinum certification level, eventually do get certified, it may take some time but eventually they all appear within the certification databases. As for the title of this page, no, it is not based on certified sales; however, all submitted claimed figures are verified through certification databases to determine whether the claimed figures are correct or inflated for promotional purposes. By the way, in the future, you might want to support all your claimed sales figures with reliable sources rather than saying that they could be found here or they could be found there.--Harout72 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i hope they do get certified soon, Relapse is not far from 2x Platinum and will hopefully get certified when it reaches 2.0 million at the end of the month, but i still doubt they will certify it anytime soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talkcontribs) 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I respect all the artist on the list but one other thing i was woundering was how come "abba" for an example, have total available certified sales at 42.6 million and yet to the side of that it displays 300 and 370 million?? and the links for these are just some news articles. How come these are classed as sources and yet when i show you a source from a news article claiming "the marshall mathers lp" selling 19 million+ you dismiss it?? are you being biased towards certain artists? thanks for helping with my enquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJS2050 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question on ABBA, I first have to say that all the artists on the list are treated in the same way. However, bear in mind that ABBA have released most of their materials before 1985 and the program of IFPI-Europe-Certifications was launched in 1996 which is what I use to look at Eminem's entire European certified sales. Unfortunately, I don't have that luxury with ABBA due to their career time-table and also because not all the markets in Europe offer certification databases (you can find the list of the databases within the box at the top of this discussion page). In the same vein, south America's two largest markets Mexican and the Brazilian markets have established their certification-based markets in 1999 (Mexico) and 1990 (Brazil). Therefore, it is rather easy to analyze the certified sales of the newer artists. I hope, my answer clears things up for you.--Harout72 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but i still believe that every single artist on that list has incorrect sales. Soundscan just released sales figures for the year 2009 displaying Eminem with album sales of 2.1 million in the united states and 6.1 million singles sold in just 2009. This would add another 8+ million to his record sales and thats without including worldwide sales this year.

Latest from Soundscan, Eminem sold over 8 million records in just the united states in 2009. Easily sold well over 100 million records. [42]

First, you should not continue posting your comments in archived discussions. Second, your opinion on whether or not Eminem has sold over 100 million albums is irrelevant as the Nielsen Soundscan's site doesn't mention anything about Eminem's worldwide sales.

bob marley

where is bob marly sold 300 million albums

actually...even though bob marley is hugely known worldwide and has a massive lasting influence and his music is very widely known...he never did sell that many records. His compilation posthumous release 'Legend' was the only real big seller and that sold in the region of about 20-22 million worldwide. All up its likely that with available certifications and estimates, Marley only sold between 30-40 million records both before and after his death; despite how good his music is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is very true that Marley's sales could not have surpassed the 40 million boarder. As pointed out above, the number of certifications available for his records do not suggest anything close to 50 million in actual sales.--Harout72 (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nana Mouskouri out of date

Nana Mouskouri has been reported by the BBC of having sold 300 million. The 200 million referenced is from a much older article. See Filastin (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The 200 million is also by BBC, only from 2003. Are we saying that Mouskouri has sold another 100 million within a period of six years. That sounds rather ludicrous, don't you think considering that she barely has enough certified sales within the databases to support even 10 million in sales. But thank you for bringing the reference above to my attention, which now convinced me that her record company has steadily tried to inflate her figures just to be able to jump start her sales. That said, I may have to begin to consider removing Mouskouri from the list altogether as it's becoming quite clear that even the 200 million has been tossed about for promotional purposes. --Harout72 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that numbers are far easier to get now. Over the past four years, quite a lot has changed in terms of data gathering as well as the huge downloads boost. I'm not saying it's even got her a few million nevermind 100, but we don't have a figure for any artist that can be confirmed by anyone. Maybe the first number was odd or maybe it's 250 million, it's besides the point. To be honest, I belive that the most up to date sources should be used, especially if they're on the same site. Another thing is that record companies may blow things up, but the only choice we have is to use up to date sources from so-called 'credible' media, and the BBC has given no back-source, so changing it to the 300 brings the position forward that it just has to be changed. Removing Mouskouri would mean removing everyone else, all record companies blow things up. Wether we consider the BBC a reputible source or not on this site backs us in a corner somewhat... to remove Mouskouri or not change it would mean reviewing most sources on this page, or just deleting it. In a nutshell, most of this page will be verging on crap in terms of numbers, but there's no choice really.Filastin (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Record companies definitely inflate figures to boost sales, not maybe. And yes, there is a way to check and see whether the claimed figures are close to the actual sales or not. There are certification databases available to us, and databases of most important markets-with exception of the Japanese market's database-are listed in a box at the top of this discussion page. Regardless of the fact that Mouskouri has begun her career some 10-15 years before lot of the countries established their certification-based-markets-with exception of the US market which has been around since '58-we still should have seen awfully lot of certified sales within the databases had even the 200 million been a true figure, such; however, is not the case. This is all the certified sales I see for Mouskouri:

I believe, it's clear that Moukouri's actual sales has never even passed the 100 million boarder. Having said that, I am entirely against using the newer figure. We need to keep the figures at this page as logical as we possibly can. By the way, most, if not all artists' sales figures have by now been scrutinized through the mentioned databases.--Harout72 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, keeping figures logical means keeping them badly referenced. It's a lose-lose situation. The bext thing to do is in smaller text below the more realistic figure to add the newer references. It's a bit silly not including it, considering it's from the same news source... Filastin (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There really is nothing silly about it when Mouskouri's lack of certifications do not suggest any major sales such as 200 million, let alone 300 million. Viewing it as badly referenced is incorrect, as all of the artists on the page are supported by highly reliable sources. This is not the first time that I am seeing the same news service publishing two very different figures for the same artist, with the dates of the articles not far apart. Therefore, in order for us to go with the one that is closer to artists' actual sales, we need to verify the figures through certification-databases. And in the case of Mouskouri, even the 200 million is inflated, but closer to her actual sales in comparison with the 300 million.--Harout72 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Added Polish ZPAV

I've added Polish ZPAV to the box at the top. Clicking on Złote płyty (Gold CD), Platynowe płyty (Platinum CD) and Diamentowe płyty (Diamond CD), will give a list of CDs with those certs. Mattg82 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Teng

She needs to be deleted from here I think. This source (The Independent) states 22 million albums, while stating another 50-75 million in pirate sales. This list doesn't count pirate sales ? Plus I can't see any certifications anywhere. Mattg82 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed Teng from the list. Thanks for bringing that source to my attention.--Harout72 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince mention??

Wikipedia itself says Prince has sold "more than 100 million records" (, yet I do not see him anywhere on the list. Since the article's locked, could someone please edit it to include him. If Wikipedia cannot cite itself, we should find another source. (Mauri96 (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

I have already removed that unreferenced figure from Prince's discography page. As for what his actual sales figure is, we've had discussions before about Prince, refer to these two archived discussions [43], [44]. If you come across any reliable sources for Prince which claim sales of 80-90 million, don't hesitate to bring them to my attention.--Harout72 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A. R. Rahman

The 2003 BBC source only says "more than 100 million albums", which could mean any number above that. There is no reason at all to set A. R. Rahman's limit at 100 million when the BBC source never even claimed that in the first place. On the other hand, the 2009 Hindustan Times article estimates 300 million, therefore it would obviously be best to state "100 million to 300 million", since it could be anywhere in between. If Harout72 still feels that an outdated 2003 estimate from a British source should be given preference over a more recent 2009 estimate from an Indian source, then I'd like to see his justification for it here before he decides to revert my edit once again. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just added two more sources which give estimates in the range of 200-300 million. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be more than glad to give you my justification as you request it above. Since your similar edits in the past had been reverted twice [45], [46], you first should have discussed before you decided to proceed with your recent edits which clearly constitute edit-warring.

Now, as far as A. R. Rahman's actual figure's concerned, had it been anything close to 110 million, BBC would have reported that figure. Most news services, if not all, do not mention any figures that fall between figures such as 10-20 (for example). In addition, A. R. Rahman, is lacking certified sales in all the certification-databases that we have available to us. That said, A. R. Rahman surely has not sold another 200 million records within a period of only six years after the 100 million claimed by BBC. Therefore, we are to stick to the most reliable source available, although, it's from six years ago. By the way, you also want to look at the box at the top of this discussion page, which suggests that Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list. --Harout72 (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to see how two reverts over a period of several months constitutes "edit warring". And as you can see from this section I just started on this talk page, I have clearly discussed the reasons for my previous edit here. As for the BBC article, it claimed "more than 100 million", which could literally mean anything from 100 to 199 million. Claiming "100 million" in this article completely contradicts the BBC's claim of more than 100 million. It would be more accurate to say "100 million+" if the BBC is the only source you are going by. However, I disagree with your assertion about the BBC being the "most reliable source available". As you can see, I have cited sources from the Times of India and Hindustan Times, both of which have been around for as long as, and one of them even longer than, the BBC. Add to that the fact that their articles are up-to-date and that they are Indian sources much closer to home in Rahman's case, I would argue that they are more reliable than the outdated BBC source you are relying on. With all this in mind, the argument that he "sold another 200 million records within a period of only six years" is a fairly redundant argument based on a misinterpretated premise. Since I don't see any reason why we should consider an outdated BBC article (or rather, your misinterpretation of it) to be any more reliable than the up-to-date Times of India and Hindustan Times articles, then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't leave it as "100 million to 300 million".
As for certified sales, I couldn't find any certification databases online at the official IMI (Indian Music Industry) website, but there are plenty of articles pointing out the certifications of Rahman's albums. Should that mean that all Indian artists should be excluded from the article just because the database for Indian record sales is not publically available online? And one more thing: I have noticed that you have reverted his career period back to "1985-present", which is again false and contradicted by his own article which clearly points out (with sources of course) that he began his career in 1992, not 1985. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

First, your edits are not made over a period of several months, they are only one month apart (first second), and similar edits do not have to be far apart from each other in order not to constitute edit-warring. Second, the figure of over 100 million stated by BBC, perhaps is viewed as 199 million by A. R. Rahman fan; however, as I pointed out above, means something between 100 million and 110 million. That said, I don't mind at all placing "+" next to 100 million. Regarding your statement above, "saying that Times of India and Hindustan Times are Indian sources and are much closer to Rahman's home", because they are Indian news services and closer, doesn't rule out the fact that they haven't tossed those inflated figures about for promotional purposes. Consequently, had A. R. Rahman's sales been anything more than 200 million or 250 million by 2003, BBC would have stated: A. R. Rahman has sold over 200 million records. Such; however, is not the case.

As for the certified sales, I was referring to the fact that Rahman lacks certifications in the databases of all countries we have available to us. That said, 300 million which you are insisting on, is a serious figure, and the Indian market alone could not have generated that kind of sales for Rahman, a figure like that would have to come to light with help of many major markets. There's also the possibility that the Indian news services may be including the sales of illegally made cassette-albums, which BBC prefers to leave out since illegal-music-sales is disregarded in the developed world, that's just an assumption. By the way, I will correct Rahman's career time-table as I didn't change it, but it has changed back when I reverted your edits.--Harout72 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)