Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 25


The recent cite added to drive Queen as having sold 150 million, as opposed to 300, is an agenda driven edit by User:LedRush. The name and edit history indicates that he is a proponent for Queen's 70's rivals Led Zeppelin, and has been involved in a debate on their talk page to drive the sales figures on their article UP! I need not say more. The Queen article has seen the same thing. EMI, although not independent, cited a 300 million albums figure, as did a recent BBC cite and several newspapers. The person who added this ignored all recent material and dug up a five year old article simply to drive the 150 million angle. Should probably be noted. Fans and critics alike (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In Fans and critics alike's personal attacks on me, I think he may have gotten every piece of information wrong. I don't believe I have edited this article (at least not in relation to Queen). I don't have an agenda. I have been involved in a debate on the Led Zeppelin talk page which changed the amound of sales from 300 million to "some say 200, others say 300". Also, I don't think Zeppelin and Queen were ever rivals, at any time.LedRush (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Christina Aguilera's sales in the list are just of albums, while other entertainers like Lady Gaga and Britney claimmed sales of 100 and 55 million respectively because of their singles sales. Christina Aguilera has sold way more singles than britney, but I can't find any source. Does anyone knows one? Lxhizy! (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The source The Daily Telegraph that supports Aguilera's 50 million claimed sales, states records, meaning albums, singles, videos, not only albums. And 50 million for Aguilera is quite right based on her available certified sales, see this archived discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with "Lxhizy" Christina has sold at least 65,000,00 records (Albums/Singles/etc) but she is only listed for her album sales which have been wrongly represented. I remember seeing a reference at one point i think when "BIONIC" was released which stated she'd sold 48m albums and 17m singles. --Duphin (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki

Ayumi as only been listed at 50m which are her Japanese sales, with the rest of her sales in Asia she is at 75m. --Duphin (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Auron891249, 11 March 2011

"The Bee Gees have sold in excess of 220 million records and singles worldwide", not 120 million.

(sorry but I don't know how to edit this page)

Auron891249 (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Bee Gees were downgraded from 220 million to 120 million per this discussion. But not long after that we came up with a different resolution, which you could find here. And per our new resolution, the Bee Gees can be placed into the table of 200-299 million along with all their certified sales which make up some 28% for 220 million, that meets the requirement as artists/bands such as the Bee Gees who have released their first record before 1975 would need their claim sales figure supported by at least 15% certified sales, and seems like that is the case with the Bee Gees. Allow some time for me to place them into the table.--Harout72 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done.--Harout72 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesais

I think now you can add him!!

According to this article he has sold almost 55 million copies. (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Below is all the available certified sales:

US certified sales: 8,500,000 Albums (of course enrique has lots of singles sold in us(?))!!!!

UK certified sales: 1,500,000 Albums, 1,000,000 Singles

German certified sales: 600,000 Albums, 500,000 Singles

French certified sales: 150,000 Albums, 325,000 Singles

Canadian certified sales: 1,100,000 Albums

Australian certified sales: 490,000 Albums, 350,000 Singles

Brazilian certified sales: 200,000 Albums

Mexican certified sales: 440,000 Albums

Dutch certified sales: 80,000 Albums, 40,000 Singles

Swedish certified sales: 40,000 Albums, 125,000 Singles

Swiss certified sales: 130,000 Albums, 85,000 Singles

Argentinean certified sales: 140,000 Albums

Polish certified sales: 245,000 Albums

Also, IFPI (Europe), for the entire European continent has 2,000,000 posted for Enrique and 2,000,000 for Escape, but of course the figures already found in European associations respectively must be deducted from IFPI (Europe)'s figures (which represent European certified sales in whole) to avoid double counting. This is done in order to see the remaining figures which come from certain European markets which don't offer certification-databases, (Italy for example), it's also done to cover the remaining sales-figures of those records in available market's databases which lie between the first and the second platinum-award (for example). The remaining figures for Enrique is 1,350,000, and for Escape is 265,000. And adding those album-figures to the top of those album-figures posted above is 13,730,000 in certified-album-sales. And singles-certified-sales is 2,425,000.And above, we have all those markets which cover 75-80% of the global sales.--Harout72 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In the last year enrique sales:

Euphoria: about 3,000,000 copies worlwide

I Like It: about 3,500,000 copies worlwide

Tonight(I'm lovin' you):about 2,500,000 copies worlwide

Heartbeat,Cuando Me Enamoro: about 500,000 copies worlwide

totall: 9,500,000 copies worlwide

so totall sales are: 13,730,000 + 2,425,000 + 9,500,000 = 25,655,000

and if we think that those sales at the top are from 80% of the world so enrique certifications are about 30,000,000 copies world wide!!!!

so the sale of 55 or 60 million is so reasonable for Enrique Iglesias and I dont think that all of those sites are wrong!

I think Enrique has reached at least 50 milliom sales but of course the claimed sales for Enrique is about 55 or 60 million copies!

thanks for correcting in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias' available certified sales are still only 19,610,000, which means that it covers some 39.22% of 50 million sales. So if a reliable source is located for Enrique Iglesias claiming 50 million, we could add him to the list. The source above states that Iglesias has sold 58 million records, and only 33.81% of that is covered by certified sales. That source or any other source with a sales claim as high as that won't do as his available certified sales are not high enough to meet our requirement, because Iglesias has released his first album in '95, which puts him in the requirement-bracket of 35-50%. We should, in fact, have his certified sales cover his claimed sales by at least 40%, but if a highly reliable source is located with 50 million, exception will be made as we should see RIAA and some other agencies issue more singles-certifications for Iglesias latest singles.--Harout72 (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. I just want to correct US sales certifications:

Enrique Iglesais: 500,000

virvir: 1,000,000

Cosas del Amor: 500,000

Enrique: 2,100,000

Escape: 3,400,000

Quizás: 400,000

7: 357,000

Insomniac: 230,000

Euphoria: 225,000

Bailamos Greatest Hits: 500,000

The Best Hits: 500,000

Enrique Iglesias: 95/08 Éxitos: 200,000

Greatest Hits: 50,000

Totall: 9,962,000 copies

and one other thing. you said that enrique sales are between 33.81% and 39.22% according to the claimed sales and it is said to have at least 35% for 1990 singers. so if the claimed sales for enrique is 55 or 58 million i think less than 2% is needed for enrique(of course when the claimed sales is 58) I think 55 million is reasonable for enrique and he has 35.6% of sales certification and as the rules says its enough. thanks alot!!!!!

Some of the figures you posted above do not correlate with certifications posted in RIAA web site, your figures are most probably taken from somewhere else, but not from RIAA's site. Iglesias has released his first record in '95, and that puts him in 35-50% requirement-bracket. Meaning, had he released his first record in '90, he would have needed only 35% certified sales covering his actual claimed sales. But having begun in the middle of 1990-2000 adds some 7.5% on the top of 35%; in other words, he would need some 42% in certified sales for whatever the claimed sales figure it would be. And with his available certified sales (19.6 million), that would only work with 50 million. Again, he would still be short of some 3%, but as I said above, we should see some more certifications coming in for his latest singles.--Harout72 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Roxette sales are incorrect

Roxette has worldwide sales of over 75 million copies of their albums and singles, no minor achievement for any pop act! And it is written only 60...

Reliable sources, just to name a few... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Roxette's available certified sales, which is only 14.7 million shows that 75 million claimed sales would not work for them. Roxette has released their first album in '86 which puts them in the bracket of 15-35% (1975-1990). And their available certified sales cover the current 60 million by only 25%, which is what they at least need since they have begun over 10 years later than 1975 (15%), meaning that adds good 14% on the top of the 15%. Hopefully, the current gap of some 4% will be filled in with help from their latest album.--Harout72 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source:

It also quoted they sold 60 million albums and 15 million singles, giving you a total of 75 million records. There is not a single website where it says the opposite, so I'm sure they DID sell 75 m. records. And your list is OUT-DATED, there are a LOT of countries that are not on it. And A LOT OF ALBUMS AND SINGLES released later that are not even mentioned there. For example, they sold 1 million albums ONLY in Argentina. Where's Argentina? What about Japan/Mexico/Chile/Malaysia/Taiwan/South Africa/Italy/Spain sales where they got plenty of Platinum and Gold certifications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My list is strictly based on the certifications posted at RIAA (USA), BPI (UK), Bundesverband Musikindustrie (Germany), IFPI (Sweden), ABPD (Brazil), IFPI (Switzerland), IFPI (Finland), IFPI (Austria), NVPI (The Netherlands) etc., and those albums and the singles which are not there on my list is because none of them have reached a gold certification level anywhere. Besides looking at what sources claim, we employ certified sales to determine and see whether the claimed figures are correct or not. See the requirement-percentages posted at the top of this page. While our available certifications don't cover some smaller South American and/or Asian markets, it doesn't mean that the presence of those would have made a lot of difference had we had access to them. By the way, Argentina has only 90,000 certified albums and 16,000 DVDs for Roxette. Note that because some music markets began certifying records after 1990, we keep the certification-requirement-percentage for artists like Roxette (who've begun releasing their materials in the 80s) very low for that very reason. For newer artists; however, we require some 50-75% certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The CAPIF site have registered sales from year 2000 up to now (it is quoted in the same page), it doesn't mean that BEFORE 2000 we never bought any album/cd/LP or any existed format. One millon is a HUGE difference from just one country. And Roxette's success is really strong in Europe, Africa And South America. There is a world outside the US. Your word document is Out dated and obsolete, need an update urgently.

Anyway, see this video where THEY GOT the Gold and Planinum recognition from EMI for the first two albums:

In 1992 they got 4x platinum for Joyride (in the video you will see FOUR CD's framed, it means 4 times platinum). Or Will you tell me now that the video is fake?

Anyway, IT IS RIDICULOUS to deny that Roxette hasn't released and sold any album since.... 1989? So then who sings in those albums instead of Roxette? If they didn't release any record why Roxette was No 1 in Germany & Switzeland last week with their new album "Charm School"? Why did they get a recognition twice from WMA as the most scandinavian album for The Ballad Hits and Have a Nice Day in 2003 and 1999? Or is Germany a very small country that doesn't count at all?

BTW, another source from a respectable UK source: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

First, CAPIF has been issuing certifications since 1980, and that is clearly stated on their site: En enero de 1980, CAPIF otorgó los primeros Galardones de Oro y Platino. Second, German certified sales are counted and it is on the file I provided. Third, please pay close attention to what editors write for you before you try to argue with them, I have 10 other music markets' certified sales on that word document besides the US market. Roxette's albums released after 1989 (including Tourism, Crash Boom Bang, Get to the Chorus: Roxette’s Greatest Hits, Ballad Hits, Room Service) have sold and have been certified in numerous countries all of which are on my file. You might want to go over Roxette's available certified sales again, which I have provided. As for the new album Charm School, it will take some months before certifying agencies issue the certifications for that album. Certifications are not issued automatically, the record companies have to pay the required fee first, before the certifications appear in the web sites of the certifying bodies.--Harout72 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes CAPIF has been issuing cert. since 1980 BUT IN THEIR SITE THE DATABASE IS FROM 2000 ONLY!!!!! Select the period, the lowest year is 2000. See this, 1989 is lower than 2000, 1990 < 2000 and .... No comments about the video? The 4 CD's framed for Joyride and the 2 CD's framed for Look Sharp!? In case u don't understand spanish, EMI's chief said that "this is an absolute record for a foreign artist, the tendency predicts that in a few months we will have one million records sold", well that was back 1992. "Charm School" got Gold in Germany and Sweden but this album is new so I don't think we can see any difference. Still no comments about the video?

The Association of the German Music Industry (Bundesverband Musikindustrie) revealed on their website, Roxette's Hits album has sold more than 100,000 copies and has therefore been certified gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

CAPIF has been issuing certifications since 1980 and they also do publish certifications issued in the 80s, see the certifications for The Beatles for example. I will not make any comments on the YouTube footage, because I hear them state that the certifications are for combined sales of four south American markets, Argentina, Chile, Urugua, Paraguay. As for Germany's Gold certification, it will be posted there, but like I said, it may take some months before the Gold certification for Charm School appears. In Sweden, certifications-award-level for Gold album is only 20,000, not much of a difference from the previous Swedish total certified sales (975,000) to updated one (995,000). Anyways, in order not to make this discussion and longer than it already has been, I'd like to repeat at this point that all claimed figures here at this page must be supported by certain certified-sales-percentile, which is up there at the top of this page. Having said that, Roxette currently has 14.7 million in certified sales, which is not even enough for 60 million claim as they would need their claimed figure (60 million) supported by almost 30% certified sales, and at the moment they only have their 60 million covered by 25% certified sales. We normally remove artists from the list if they don't meet the required percentile, but since it's only 4%, I hoping that their new album will fill in this gap. I think, we've said enough of this.--Harout72 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL It is RIDICULOUS, now Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile are combined commercially as ONE COUNTRY? That's the most stupìd thing I have ever heard. We work in separate ways, as our economies are different. Of Course, the worldwide brands Warner, Sony, EMI, BMG has also representations in all these countries, as well as in Europe/Asia etc --- There are some countries that don't manufacture records anymore, such as Peru or Bolivia or Paraguay, they only import copies from Argentina or Brazil, but that doesn't mean that all latin america are combined as an one only market. Chile manages their own market and so does Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, etc.

Regarding CAPIF, it is SIMPLE to explain: 1989 is LOWER than 2000, the same applies to the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and finally 1999. It means that these year happened BEFORE 2000. Shall I use Apples? The site has date controls. "De" means "from", and the little square is a sort of combo box, you have to click on the arrow and a list will display for you. In that list, you will see that the lowest value is 2000. It means that all searchings are from this year, even when they were re-released years later. Now that I see, you never mentioned Australia. Or Australia doesn't count as part of the word Worldwide?

The video SHOWS CLEARLY that they are getting a 4x Platinum Certification for outstanding sales of Joyride as well as another certification for Look Sharp! that was one week before they played for an audience of 90.000 in two shows in Buenos Aires. The video EXISTS and IT IS A PROOF, if you don't want to accept it, or deny it, it's up to you. Anyway, I don't think Roxette needs this silly outdated list to prove anything to anyone. You can remove them if you like, the world can deal with that. It is not serious at all, c'mon, let's take an example, Luis Miguel, the famous latin singer with sales over 75 millions, that's insane, nobody believes that, and you quoted a "paparazzi magazine" as a reliable source!!!. He was popular but not incredible huge. In fact he sold many many records in Argentina, even more than Roxette. But I don't think you wouldn't care at all. That shows how serious this list is.

I dont know what to say about this not serious list, has it been made by one person? you claim that depeche mode has sold 100 million, when even their fans say that they sold 50 millions records!! what about roxette, well, only with look sharp and joyride they sold more than 14 millions!! it's what you said about rox numbers. what ridiculous you are!! this prove that you don't know anything about music. First, ask EMI. second, you should learn more about music and third, please, remove roxette from this unreliable list, they dont deserve to be there.! finally show proof about what you said. (my proof one question,,,, how can i report somebody for giving false information??? gabylator

Charles Aznavour

This is with regards to this edit made by Gazifikator. The user also briefly tried to discuss in the archived discussion, which we don't do.

All artists begun before 1975 (which includes Aznavour) are to have their claimed figures supported by only 15% certified sales. Please see the requirements at the top of this page. Aznavour's available certified sales are:

Aznavour's available certified sales cover only 3.3% of his claimed figure of 100 million, which is good 11% short of what an artist needs to meet the requirement of 15% to appear on the list. Although, Canada's certification database isn't available at the moment, Aznavour's Canadian certified sales would not make that much difference.--Harout72 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Destiny's Child / Beyonce

Destiny's Child is the biggest selling female group of all time, Selling over 50 million albums as stated. No problem. Beyonce solo has sold about 20-25 million albums worldwide solo and on this page it is stated Beyonce as 75 million. Which including Destiny Child this is correct... But as a solo artist this is wrong. I have no problems but if that is the case then Kelly Rowland should be also up here. 50 Million with Destiny's Child and 3.5 Million Solo. If is false for it to be stated "Beyonce of the biggest selling artist of all time selling over 75 million album". You have to be fair so it either needs to be removed or Kelly Rowland to added at 54 Million, Michelle Williams at 51 Million and Letoya Luckett at 51

Million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

(talk) 19:32, 24 

February 2011 (UTC)

Destinys Child did not sell 50 million records. That number includes solo sales before the group disbanded in 2005 or 2006. Evey source says that the group sold 50 million including solos. 50 million - Dangerously in Love - Kellis solo - Michelles two solos = Destinys Childs sales. It is not 50 million. A recent MTV interview with Matthew Knowles states that they sold 40 million records. It needs to be removed this group biggest album only sold 8 million in the US

-I know this may be long: But should Destiny's Child's album and single sales be listed under both the Destiny's Child name and under Beyonce's' solo name? That actually doesn't seem correct. That would be counting the same album unit twice if you were to do that, three times if you also count it under Kelly Rowland, four times if you also count it under Michelle Williams, etc. Although Beyonce was the lead singer of DC, there were other members in the group who contributed to its success, such as Rowland and Williams, particulary Rowland. So should Beyonce just be able to claim all the sales of Destiny's Child's records? No she shouldn't. On several singles from their albums they took turns singing the verses; and on songs like Bootylicious, Rowland sang more on that song than Beyonce did (but you wouldn't know that by looking at the video as it mostly showed Beyonce). Now some people bought that album because of that single (which was mostly sung by Rowland) but the sales are going to be listed under Beyonce's name?; that's not right. The correct way to handle this is to count Destiny Child's albums, singles, and video/DVD sales under Destiny's Child, and count all their solo records and any solo video/DVD sales under their own respective names. This way a record unit isn't being counted two, three, or four times when it actually sold once. Destiny's Child has sold about 40 million albums worldwide, but it states here that Beyonce has sold 75 million worldwide. I assume that's because the DC sale numbers are being added into Beyonce's sale numbers. That's not accurate to do; Beyonce should be listed as 35 million records sold.

-Now some people cannot live if Beyonce's name isn't on this list as a solo artist (they will just die, they can't take it). Just having the Destiny's Child name here on the list isn't good enough for them. But the article only shows acts of at least 50 million sales. Well, a new sales level (plus a "Notes" section) could be created. The new level: 49 million - 35 million. This would get Beyonce added in this section at 35 million, and in the "Notes" section on the far right write "75 million if Destiny's Child sales included". (By the way, the Supremes are absent from this list as it currently stands). Incidentally, the Supremes' Wikipedia article states they sold over 100 million albums as a group, and Diana Ross' article states she sold over 100 million albums. Now of course she didn't sell an additional 100 million albums after she left the Supremes. Not to mention the fact there was a time when the Supremes made albums after Ross left the group, yet she has their sales tallied under her solo name; that's not right. This is why solo artists should have their own sales tallied and listed under the "best selling musicians" list and a "Notes" section that states what their sales are if their previous group is included. The only thing to wonder about is will a section consisting of 49-35 million selling acts be too large, or will it be about the same size or slightly larger than the other sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another option would be to leave the minimum level of the list at 50 million, and create the "Notes" section after the "country of origin", "period active", "genre", "total certified sales", and "claimed sales" columns. Then in this section write any necessary notes that pertain to that artists sales. For Beyonce, for instance, the notes section would say "also includes Destiny's Child sales" or something to that effect. If Diana Ross were on the list it would say "also includes the Supremes sales". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Beyoncé's solo sales are correct. "Record sales" aren't just the sales from the album, they also include single sales and even video sales. The record sales from Beyoncé's album I Am... Sasha Fierce amount to roughly 27 million records on it's own. 75 million records it about correct for her solo sales. Angelic-alyssa (talk) 20:53, 05 April 2011 (UTC)

destinys child

they have sold 50 million including solo sales even the states this. Their sales are actually around 40 million. They dont need to be there. If you are going to allow solos sales to be included with group sales then the Jackson Five needed to be listed at 800 million along with Michael Jackson. The fans of the Beyonce want make her seem larger than she actually is, they were never the biggest girl group of all time remove this 50 million sales bullshit because solo sales and group sales cannot give you a group sale.

I agree with the above poster, solo sales and group sales should not be counted together. Beyonce's fans do try to make her seem larger. But this isn't a fan site so actual facts should be presented here. If Beyonce's solo sales or Destiny's Child's group sales counted individually are high enough to put either one of them on the list, so be it. But if they are not high enough, then they shouldn't be on the list, plain and simple. What you cannot do is combine the two sets of sales to get an act on the list. The problem with this is: why should all Destiny's Child's sales go to Beyonce when Kelly Rowland also sang on the albums quite a bit? And secondly, as the above poster commented, you then rightfully have to give the Jackson Five sales of over 800 million because you must count not only their actual sales as a group, but also the sales of Michael Jackson and Jermaine Jackson into the Jackson Five's total sales because -you did it for Destiny's Child. Should the Jackson Five not receive the same treatment just because Michael Jackson was more successful then Beyonce? That wouldn't make sense. So sense the article is (correctly) counting Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five separately, it should be counting Beyonce and Destiny's Child separately. Like Spike Lee says, "do the right thing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Destiny's Child sales have always been listed as 50 million sales, and that does not include Beyoncé's solo sales. As a solo artist Beyoncé has sold roughly 75 million records, so even if they did combine the sales, that'd put them over 125 million records, which they're not listed at. I don't think it's the Beyoncé fans that are messing with her sales, as opposed to the ill-informed general public. Angelic-alyssa (talk) 21:00, 05 April 2011 (UTC)


can pink stand be here?--AccendiLaLuce (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Pink's available certified sales are 27.7 million and her first record has been released in 2000, she meets the requirement to be included on the list if a reliable source is located with a claim sales of 50-55 million records (singles, albums and videos), not just albums.--Harout72 (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Julio Iglesias

Julio Iglesias has sold 300 million records. Certificated sales: More than 2,600 platinum and gold records. The source of 100 million is a very old source.

Sources (English language):

Sources (Spanish language):

We operate this page based on certified sales, see the requirements of the percentages at the top of this page. Also, for Julio Iglesias, see this archived discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez

The media previously claimed that Lopez had sold 50-55 million records worldwide and a consensus amongst registered users felt the number was too high considering that one user had calculated Lopez's certified sales appear to be near the half-way mark if not less. However, following a resurgence in popularity thanks to American Idol and a successful single, news reports have started reporting this figure again. Most notably, The Official Charts Company (officially lisensed chart provider in the UK) has reported this very figure here. Are we comfortable to now say that Lopez selling 55 million records (note records means singles and albums combined) is actually plausible or true, given the reliable source? — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez still has low certified sales, 20.4 million in certified sales coming from larger markets, medium sized markets and all notable smaller sized ones. I have uploaded my detailed analysis of Lopez' certified sales here. Note that all of the certifications are taken directly from the databases of certifying bodies. However, as you may have noticed at the top of this page, we have specified certification requirements now, based on years artists have released their first records. Lopez has released her first record in 1999, which puts her in the bracket of 35-50%, and Lopez would need her claimed sales-figure covered by 49-50% certified sales, meaning for a claimed figure of 50 million, she would need some 25 million in certified sales. Although, short by 4.6 million in certified sales, Lopez is charting quite well numerous markets at the moment with her new single "On the Floor", which is going to bring her certified sales much higher than 20.4 million quite soon. I think locating a highly reliable source with a claim of 50 million (not 55 million), and putting her up on the list may be a logical approach. The shortage of certified sales will most likely be filled in with upcoming certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
What you're saying makes sense... but then the story was covered by a reliable source. (a very reliable one IMO). "OTF" was already racked up certificates. I'm inclined to believe this. Have you taken into account that the sales/shipments required for various albums/singles have changed throughout the years? — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 02:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I always refer to the changes in certification awards that have taken place throughout the years. "On the Floor" has already been certified Gold in Sweden (10,000 units) and Platinum in Australia (70,000), but there will be many more to come. Could you post some of those reliable sources that claim 50 million for Lopez? Thanks in advance.--Harout72 (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Just piping in for a second. I don't think it should be an issue whether we claim 50 or 55 million. "OTF" has already sold over 1 million units in the US, practically 200k in the UK and should have sold at least 2 million+ globally. For me, either 50 or 55 will work. More sources are always welcome.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The reliable source I was speaking of is The Official Charts Company one which I've already listed which IMO is the most reliable form of source because it is IFPI-related. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I inserted Lopez into the list using a claim figure of 50 million published by Time magazine. The 55 million would be stretching it to far as she is still short of 4.6 million, that is for 50 million.--Harout72 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely "The Four Seasons" have sold more 50 million records

This is on Wikipedia:

The Four Seasons (group members 1960–1965) were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1990,[5] and it joined the Vocal Group Hall of Fame in 1999.[1] They are one of the best-selling musical groups of all time, having sold 175 million records worldwide.[4][6]

So they need to be included here.

Snapdog77 (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This list requires that all artists begun before 1975 have their claimed figures supported by 15% certified sales, and that is not the case with The Four Seasons. They have only 3.5 million certified sales coming from USA, and 360,000 certified sales coming from the UK, that would not even be enough if their claimed figure was 50 million. By the way, the first reference [5] at their page cannot be found, and the second one cannot be verified as it's an offline source.--Harout72 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sales awards by trade associations such as the RIAA are not compulsory so the absence of such awards does not disprove a cited sales figure. Piriczki (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the main page of the list and the discussion page do inform editors about the requirement-percentages that artists need in order to be on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

According to a link on the "Marilyn Manson (Band)" article, the band has sold more than 50,000,000 albums worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mireille Mathieu

In 2005 she received an award for selling 122 million albums (video available in her DVD) (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Something needs to be done on the Donna Summer article. Someone keeps inserting that she has sold 130 millions albums and singles (which any music fan will know is not true). That would put her sales over many big name acts. Donna Summer is good, but she has not sold 130 million records (130 million?!...get real). If she had, she would be on this list. From my calculations she has sold approximately in the range of 35 million. Someone tacking on an extra 100 million units is just WRONG! These are not fan pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible Lost Data

Is it really true that only artists beginning with 'G' or earlier in the alphabet have sold between 120 million and 149 million records, or has the latter part of that box been accidentally deleted by some previous edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They are all still there, nothing's been lost. Previously we used to have 100-149, which I separated into two different sections, 100-119 and 120-149.--Harout72 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

I'm well aware that this has been mentioned before, but this article is reliant on original research. The selection process on what gets in seems to be dependant on the editors best guessing of what they want to believe. I think it's actually probably close to the truth in the end because of the amount of work that has gone into it, but it's still original research. The % of certified selection rule is just something made up, and isn't suitable for wikipedia.

I suggest changing it so that the artists are ranked by certified sales and just acknowledge the bias against older music. This doesn't look like it would change the broad features of the article. What it would do is remove the original research, and also remove the need for the second references. The second references are unreliable anyway because even usually reliable sources (BBC etc.) just quote whatever the record company makes up. That's the reason they needed to be tied to the certified sales in the first place.

I know a lot of work has gone into this and so a lot of editors will be unwilling to change it. However, in hindsight I think the search for a way to verify unreliable sources seems to have muddied the water. Rather than making up some rules to accomodate for their unreliability they should have been dispensed with and a reliable measure used instead. Thoughts? (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to go over WP:OR, it clearly states This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources". That is exactly what certified sales are based on.--Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Harout72. Those are "Logical Calculations", not "Original Research". Scieberking (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't like using a date of birth to get someones age, or a radius to get a volume. Using certified sales to back up the unreliable references by a percentage system based on age is something you've invented. It's allowed to do routine calculations, but not to make up a methodology.
WP:OR "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented."
What is being done here is taking reliable certified sales data (rightly doing some routine summing), and using it to indirectly support the material as presented. It's indirect as you are then using the certified sales data to pick and choose which (unreliable) sources to believe based on an originally conceived staggered percentage system. That's OR. (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It can be understandable that you're probably here to try and change the system because most likely your favorite artist(s) based on the current system is/are not on the list. Well, all certified sales are directly supported with reliable sources and the certification-award-levels also are supported by reliable sources, which are posted at the footnotes of the main page. We have not made up a methodology, we have discussed and gained consensus on how to avoid inflated figures using a method which would be backed up with a logical and well supported data, and the current method seems to be working well. Converting certified sales into figures is not OR.--Harout72 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit rude to assume that I want to change it to favour my favourite artists; opinions other than yours must be biased? You haven't tackled the question of using the certified sales to indirectly support the material as presented which, as I've shown, is against WP:OR. Whether it's working well or not is irrelevant. Good pieces of original research are disallowed as well as bad pieces.

Stop using straw men, I am not against converting certified sales into figures. I am against manipulation of these figures to decide which references to choose. (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What's rude, is, in fact, you calling us manipulators. The system of percentage-requirement has been created because most of the published sales figures are not the actual sales figures of artists, they are inflated by their record companies for promotional purposes; therefore, we rely on certified sales to determine and see if the published figures are correct or not. The required-percentages for every era should be different because certification-systems of those markets which cover good portion of the global sales have been instituted after 1970 (see the footnotes). This method seems to be serving its purpose without the page being biased. And it's not picking and choosing, we simply verify each published figure with certified sales, and WP:RS allows editors to do that The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.--Harout72 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If "manipulation" came across as rude I apologise, I meant it in the sense to change or alter (by taking a variable percentage). I don't think the current method is suiting the purpose without being biased. For example, at one point in the original discussion it was realised that ABBA would have been dropped from the list. The percentages were then changed so this didn't happen ("Mat, good catch on ABBA, I'm not at all ready to remove them from the list").
I don't think it is within the remit of wikipedia's editors to choose where to set the percentages as this risks bias. As I've already said, I think it's against WP:OR as it's indirect use of data. The section of WP:RS you have quoted just says it's important to check sources, it doesn't back up the current methodology at all.
I understand the need to avoid taking reported sales figures at face value, I've already dealt with that in my initial post. My suggestion is to list by certified sales. (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias

US: Tonight (I'm Lovin' You): 2x platinum according to this

so now he has 21.6 certifited sales that covers 43.2% of 50 million sales!!

Well, is there a reliable source claiming 50 million records for Iglesias?--Harout72 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont know but i think reliable sources have claimed that he has sold more than 50 million! or maybe almost 60 million! so you mean if it is 60 million, the certifited sales are steal low? right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid1374 (talkcontribs) 10:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at the moment only 50 million claim would work as he still doesn't have enough certified sales for 60 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok but i think the claimed sales is 55 million! right? according to this and if you read this article it has claimed that Enrique (album) has gone double-platinum in the US as you can see in hisdiscography page but here it is said one platinum that i think is not veryfiable and in RIAA database it has forgotten to mention. so his certifited sales are 22.6 or almost 23 million that works with 55 million sales claimed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid1374 (talkcontribs) 19:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I constantly update my certified-sales files for all artists, that one I must have uploaded on the last time there was a discussion on Iglesias. See my updated version of that the same file here. The available certified sales for Iglesias are 21.7 million, which covers 43.5% of 50 million and 39.6% of 55 million. While 39.6% is a bit lower as it should be at least some 42%, if we locate reliable sources claiming 55 million, we could insert him onto the list. We should avoid; however, using Record Company sources. We should also avoid using sources that claim 55 million albums, it must claim 55 million records (albums, singles and videos). Let me know if you come across one, I'll try to look for one also.--Harout72 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done I located a reliable source for Iglesias claiming 55 million records. I inserted him into the table of 55-74 million.--Harout72 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid1374 (talkcontribs) 11:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok but some points about the new file of certifited sales:

1- as i said Enrique(album) has two platinum in US. even RIAA database can make mistake.

2-you have forgotten to claim his certifitions in Spain.

3- i read somewhere that Cuando Me Enamoro has 150000 copies sold in Mexic and it has gone double-platinum in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farid1374 (talkcontribs) 14:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I see only one Platinum certification posted by RIAA for Enrique. I have to go with what's posted by certifying bodies.
  • As for Spain, beginning from 2004, he doesn't have that much certified sales, his latest singles have been certified, "Tonight (I'm Lovin' You)" Gold for sales of 20,000, "Cuando Me Enamoro" Platinum for sales of 40,000, "I Like It" Platinum for sales of 40,000. His album Euphoria is in its 41st week on the Spanish album chart and has not even gone Gold in Spain for sales of 30,000, but my guess is that it might. His 2003 album 7 has not been certified Gold either in Spain, has only peaked at No.31. The 2007 album Insomniac has not been certified Gold either in Spain, has only peaked at No.15 and spent some 15 weeks only on the album chart. PROMUSICAEI has only 100,000 units of singles in certified-sales overall posted between 2004-present. Before 2004, I have no luxury of checking his Spanish certified-sales as there are no certification-databases offered by PROMUSICAE.
  • Argentina's CAPIF doesn't have any of Iglesias' new materials posted yet, the most recent certification is from 2008.
  • Mexico's AMPRFON, has only Euphoria certified as Platinum for sales of 60,000, no certified singles yet from his new album.
  • Again, we have to follow what's been posted on the sites of certifying bodies, we cannot make up numbers. And keep in mind that Spain and Mexico are not large music markets, the sales they generate, never make a big difference in the total-sales of artists. Argentina is only a small size market. Hope all that helps.--Harout72 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Backstreet sales

The 130 million claimed figure for the backstreet boys is only albums. Their actual record sales which includes singles is at the 200 million mark. I've noticed for other artists such as Lady Gaga that their singles have been included in this. So make sure that for all artists, their record sales are listed instead of their album sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Tina Turner sales exceed 180 million

Acording to a lot of links, Tina Turner´s sales exceed 180 millions, with enough available certified sales for someone who beggins to sing in 1956.

There´s some links:–-one-of-the-biggest-selling-concert-tickets-ever/

for the certified sales, are all linked on Tina Turner´s Discography wikipedia article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltusk (talkcontribs) 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite that Turner has sung since the '50s, she has first charted in 1975; in other words, her commercial breakthrough has begun in '75. The sources above are not reliable, by the way. However, Turner's available certified sales stand at 31.7 million (that is 17.6% for 180 million records and 31.7% for 100 million). I think 100 million is more correct than 180 million for Turner, but since she's first charted in '75, she meets the requirement of this list (see the requirements at the top). We could update her claimed figure from 100 to 180 million if a highly reliable source is located.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the addition of 180 for Turner. Her main market is the US, which has been active since 1958. There is no way she can be placed in the same league as Whitney Houston. There is just no comparison in certifications, sales, notability or anything.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 02:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nathan, while I agree with you that Turner could not have sold as many as 180 million records based on what her available certified sales suggest, we are to have some sort of a guideline to follow at this page to avoid all the unnecessary and endless discussions that take time and psychological energy. I think, we have created that guideline, the required percentages. In the past couple of months, after we came up with this solution, I'm sure, we all have noticed the steep decline in the number of all the pointless discussions that this page used to attract before. In my opinion this method is friendlier and more logical, and I think we want to stick with it, at least for now :).--Harout72 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good Harout :) I agree, things here have never been so peaceful lol.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 22:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Duran Duran 100 milion +


I ask you to stay tuned to the sales figures of Duran Duran. The British band has sold over 100 million copies worldwide in its three-decade career. To correct this, because there were only 70 million. There were 100 million copies!


Thanks! --Mcatrinck (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Per our requirement of certified sales (see the brackets of required certified sales above) Duran Duran would need some 23% (23 million) in certified sales to support the 100 million sales figure since they've first charted in 1981. However, Duran's Duran's available certified sales are only 21 million which clearly do not suggest anything above 50-60 million. Meaning the 70 million is what we should stick with as their sales have been rather weak in numerous markets and because of that they don't have certified sales in markets like Austria (the database of which starts from 1990), Switzerland (the database of which starts from 1989), Sweden (the database of which starts from 1987), Poland (the database of which starts from 1995), Norway (the database of which starts from 1993), Australia (the database of which starts from 1997), Brazil (the database of which starts from 1990), Mexico (the database of which starts from 1999). --Harout72 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

this is not a reliable list

Sorry, but i think this kind of list which is full of false informations it is offensive for most of people, musician, fans, etc. We can see that figures are totally false. For some bands and singers they count albums + singles, for others only albums. and worst, for some artist they only count certificates sales. it depends on your taste on music ??? mmmm very bad, you are wrong. Everybody can invent albums and singles sales. I think they should remove this list a soon as posible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabylator (talkcontribs) 02:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of what you write is correct. The figures are NOT correct. That is true. But they are based on the best available data there is, with compromises made when divergent data is found. As a for instance, there's one particular artist, who I believe is actually still on this list, who sold a tiny fraction of what's reported. Said artist ended up virtually hitting bankruptcy and lost their record contract because their actual sales (contrary to what the RIAA "certified") were (per their label, at the time of their break-up with the artist) abysmal and just a tiny fraction of what they had been claiming and what the RIAA had certified. Their cert still stands though (even though their own label recanted their sales figures) - and thus, so does their status on this page.
Please remember, Wikipedia is not about The TruthTM, it is about verifiability in sources deemed as reliable, regardless of what our opinions or reality happen to be.
On that note, there are NO actual, truthful, accurate sales data for ANY of these artists. One must make do with what's out there, within Wikipedia's Guidelines.

ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

first of all, thanks for the answer. I have some objections about this list. Despite the fact i am not from Brazil, i must say there are some brazilian musician they have sold more than 50 million albums and there are not in that list. XUxa, Roberto Carlos, etc. take a look.. I feel sorry you only pay attention to the american market. The rest of the world exist,too. For that reason is which i think your list is very incomplete. Not only 300 millions of americans buy cds, the rest, 6 billions, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabylator (talkcontribs) 21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Carlos was removed from the list due to lack of certified sales. All artists on the list that have first charted before 1975 are to have their claimed-figures covered by 15% certified sales. Carlos has some 10 million in certified sales.
Carlos can be re-inserted into the list if a highly reliable source is located with a claim figure of 50-60 million. He was removed from the list because his claimed figure was 100 million supported by this source.--Harout72 (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you!! but you should make a list only with certified sales. So, ABBA must be in the bottom of the list. And you remove Roxette from the list, too, because they have sold 14 million albums only. (according to you) ask emi, please. (certified sales are not reliable) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabylator (talkcontribs) 15:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Regarding Rod Stewart: It is widely known/established that Rod Stewart began his career in music aged 19, therefore in 1964 when he joined Long John Baldry's band. In 1962 (as the article notes he supposedly became an active musician), he was aged 17 (he was born on January 10th, 1945) and, as he has stated many times over the years, he did not begin working professionally as a vocalist until he was 19 and was hired by Long John Baldry (as has already been mentioned).

The above is confirmed in this biography of Long John Baldry:

The relevant paragraph is as follows: "After the tragic death of Cyril Davies in January 1964, Long John Baldry formed the Hoochie Coochie Men, featuring Geoff Bradford on guitar, and singer Rod Stewart as second vocalist, who had been recruited by Baldry after he heard him singing a Muddy Waters song at a railway station."

Furthermore, it is widely recognized that Rod Stewart has at least an estimated 250 million units of music sales. The number provided in the article is undoubtedly inaccurate, especially as his last albums have had considerable sales figures (also, since and including 2002, the 7 studio albums he has released have all entered the Billboard album charts within the top 5 positions).

The estimated sales figure presented in the article should be reviewed and changed promptly. (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done Stewart's page states that he's begun in 1964. As for his claimed sales, 100 million as stated in the source we currently have for Stewart seems quite right based on his available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my point was he began in 1964. The link you provided to a BBC page is dated 2002, before his Great American Songbook series was released (the best selling ongoing album series in history) and those Songbook albums alone have an estimated 25 million in sales. Since the article was written, Stewart has also released 'Still the Same... Great Rock Classics Of Our Time' and 'Soulbook' which entered Billboard at number one and number two respectively. (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: requesting comment from another editor on whether or not change should be made. Kinaro(talk) (contribs) 03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The year Stewart has begun has been corrected. We should; however, stay with 100 million in sales.--Harout72 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be origin of ARTISTS, not origin of careers

The criteria for "origin" in this article should be based upon the origin of the artists themselves. It makes no sense to list the origin of the careers of the artists, but unfortunately that seems to be the policy for this article.

For example, Rihanna is listed as originating from the US as well as Barbados, despite not being American. Why is this? Why does the start of her career in a nation that is not her own merit said country being attributed to her origin, despite the fact that the artist herself originated from Barbados? It makes no sense to attribute such success to another country simply because that success was achieved within its borders. For example, Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone (or a phone) in the US, but is himself a British citizen. Does that make the invention of the phone American? No it does not, and it should never be attributed as such.

The same principle should apply here. It does not matter where their career began, as we are talking about the origin of the artists themselves. In fact, the article is even worded in such a manner - first column being "artist", and the second being "country of origin". Irrespective of where their career began, the wording quite clearly indicates that the ARTIST'S origin should be listed, and therefore it is utterly nonsensical for the origin to be based upon the beginnings of their career.

I propose that the policy regarding the criteria for the "origin" of artists on this article be changed. The current policy is illogical and misleading, and I believe that ammending the article to list the origin of the artists themselves would considerably improve the quality of the article. Hopefully a consensus to that affect can be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talkcontribs) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment above: For example, Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone (or a phone) in the US, but is himself a British citizen. Does that make the invention of the phone American?. The answer is yes, the invention is American as it has been invented in the States and has been patented in the States, regardless of the person's nationality it is American. The same rule applies here. Why the US should take the credit when Rihanna is from Barbados originally? The answer is simple, all the marketing and promotion is done by the record company which Rihanna is signed on, and that is an American record company located in US. However, Rihanna's nationality is often mentioned before she performs on stage weather in the US or in Europe, but still she represents the US as an artist. There are many other examples like this. Boney M. was a German based act and represented Germany regardless of the fact that all of the members were foreign born.--Harout72 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Completely and utterly incorrect. In fact, your ignorance on how inventions are attributed to countries is downright shocking.

There is no debate on this issue, the answer is simply no. The fact that invention was invented in the States is totally irrelevant - as it was invented by a British national, it is undeniably British. In no sense is the invention American as not a single American had a part to play in the invention of the device. This is exactly why history remembers the phone as British, and why our education systems repeatedly reinforce this fact. There are countless things achieved in America by those who are not American, and rightly they are not regarded as American achievements - because Americans were not the ones to achieve it. It is nothing short of idiotic to suggest that America should be attributed to inventing something that no American actually invented, hence why the phone is remembered as a British invention. It is foolish to think otherwise.

The same rule should apply for this article. Marketing and promotion is wholly irrelevant and should never play a part in determining which country has what achievement attributed to it. Are you honestly trying to say that when someone with a great deal of talent achieves something based entirely on their own merits, they should share their fame and fortune with the guys who puts up the damn posters? Utter nonsense. For example, if someone writes a book, they are not to share this achievement with the publishers. Bram Stoker's publisher was British, yet he himself is an Irishman. Are you trying to tell me that his book is now British too? If so then please take it up with the Irish editors of this site, I'm sure they'll appreciate your viewpoint.

It is Rihanna's success and Rihanna's alone. It is her music and it doesn't matter who pays for the advertising. Therefore, it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that her record company should play a part in determining what country is attributed to what achievement. Here's another example - Jimi Hendrix's career originated in the UK, he was signed to a British record company and they did all of his early promotions and marketing were done by this company; are you honestly going to sit there and tell me his music is American-British?

It is for this reason that Rihanna does not represent the US, and therefore the article must be ammended. And that is a poor example - while the members of Boney M were foreign-born they all gained German citizenship, and thus became German. Rihanna has never gained US citizenship and therefore she cannot be regarded as having origins in the US. WiseNinja1 (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Artists don't have to gain citizenship to represent the market they start their careers in. Examples of these are, Corona (singer) who is Brazilian represents Italy, not an Italian citizen. ATC (band) German based again, none of the members are German nor German citizens, all representing Germany. Culture Beat German based, neither one of the members German nor German citizens, but represented Germany. The credit goes to the market where an artist begins and remains. Those artists; however, beginning in another market other than their own, but later/soon return to their home market, they represent their own country. Lastly, I have no intentions of continuing this discussion with someone who violates WP:Personal attack with such statements as In fact, your ignorance on how inventions are attributed to countries is downright shocking. You might want to do some research on how patents work.--Harout72 (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

yes, artists do have to gain citizenship to represent another market. If they are not from that country then neither is their work.

All of those are PRIME examples of why I am fighting this nonsensical policy - so many artists are having their work attributed to a country that they are not affiliated to, and it is plain ridiculous. If a handful of bandmembers are nationals of the country they allegedly represent then there is indeed a case, but if not then the articles must be changed. All you have done is further reinforce why this policy must be changed.

And I'm sorry, but such a statement can hardly be constituted as a personal attack in any real sense. It is a part of normal conversation and a standard element of debate to display shock when someone utters something that is not only ignorant but bordering on offensive. To be honest, bringing up WP:Personal attack for something so minor seems to be nothing but a cop-out.

If you are removing yourself from the debate then that means there isn't any opposition for my revert and it can hardly be classified as a personal attack, so there isn't any sense in doing that.

I can assure you that I am well-versed in the nature of patents and inventions on the whole, and considering your downright ignorant comments regarding inventions I think it's fair to say I am considerably more knowledgeable in the subject than you. A patent can indeed be filed by a foreign national and that patent shall be kept on record in that country, but that means utterly nothing when considering which country can be attributed to the invention. If a British man invents something in the United States, it is a British achievement, regardless of where it was achieved. It is down to the INDIVIDUAL, not the organisations that are involved, and THAT is what determined the origin of any piece of work.

It is the same for every medium there is. Regardless of where somebody achieves something, it is their nationality that counts, NOT where they made the achievement. This is true for literally anything you can think of, and it is utterly nonsensical to state otherwise.

I shall say it again - if no American has no part to play in the actual achievement being discussed, then they cannot be attributed to it. It doesn't matter who promoted it, produced it, built it, packaged it, distributed it, sold it - if not a single man from that nation had a part to play in the actual achievement itself, then they cannot be attributed to it. That is why my Alexander Graham Bell example is entirely valid, and that is why this article must have Rihanna's origins ammended. WiseNinja1 (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been explained and given number of examples as to why it should be the way it is here at this page. And yes, Americans have had major part in Rihanna's success, the music writers. I suggest you check your facts before you continue to insist on something you don't have a command of. The same is with all of those examples above.--Harout72 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, YOU have given numerous reasons why the article should be changed. Again, we are discussing the origin of the artist, not their careers. The essence of the point is that it is her achievement as it is her talent that has made her saleable to the public; if we were going to going to set about using the nationality of songwriters to determine what country is deemed the origin of an artist, then we may as well list Lady GaGa as part British in origin, as well as Michael Jackson due to the fact that he didn't write his most successful song, Thriller. In fact just about every major pop artist would essentially be a melting-pot of different nationalities, and such a criteria would result in Elvis having about a dozen different countries listed as his origin. Your argument falls flat on its face.

Another example is needed, I believe. You have implied that the nationality of the songwriters should play some role in determining the origin of the songwriter. If that is the case, then the fact that Ridley Scott directed the film "Alien" would make the film part-British in origin. Clearly this is not the case however.

Yet another example. Films set in tropical locales are often filmed on location. There are countless Hollywood films that were shot in Africa, Asia, Russia, Paris and so on. However, you clearly stated earlier that you believed that the location that something was achieved determines which nation said achievement can be attributed to. Does this mean that all these Hollywood films with American directors, screenwriters, filmcrews and actors are partially foreign? Of course it doesn't, the nationality of those actually doing the achieving is what counts. I'm sorry, but how can you not see just how wrong you are?

The point is simple - Rihanna has achieved fame herself due to her talent, and we are now here to list the origin of the ARTIST, as the article clearly states. This has been done incorrectly and it must be ammended. I have given far more than enough reason why - the same goes for all of the examples above, and you have inadvertently provided numerous reasons why the article should be changed. There is no good reason for the article to remain the same.

It is highly ironic that one with such a deep level of ignorance on these subjects can accuse me of not being knowledgeable enough. I have proven numerous times a greater understanding of the subject matter and the surrounding concepts. You have merely provided highly illogical counter-arguments, many of which actually give good cause for a change in policy for the exact reasons I've been stating the whole time.

Furthermore, if you are so ignorant as to suggest that a country should be attributed to an invention merely because it was invented within its borders, and in spite of the fact that no-one from said country actually played a part in inventing it, then you really have no place discussing the origin of anything. You really cannot afford to be so condescending when you clearly don't know what you're talking about at all. WiseNinja1 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you declared that you were "done with futile discussion". It is only futile from your point of view, and that is because you clearly have no leg to stand on. If you are "done" then I assume that you are stepping aside from opposing my proposed edit, and should you truly duck out of this discussion I will amend the article. WiseNinja1 (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We are only interested in the origin of the career, not the person's ethnicity, and that's what should be listed here.—Kww(talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. We are interested in the origin of the artist, not their careers. This is evident in the wording of the article itself - after all, the first column is "artist" and the second column is "origin". Does it say "origin of career"? No, it is instead clearly listing the origin of the ARTIST.

Nobody said anything about their ethnicity. We are talking about their nationality here, and that is key. There is nothing more important than nationality when determining the origin of ANYTHING.

The origin of their career is utterly irrelevant, and the article MUST be changed. It is downright misleading otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talkcontribs) 22:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The nation that someone's career started in is fairly important when discussing origins. The nation of birth is pretty much an accident: it isn't something that anyone has control over.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The origin of the artist is of sole importance, and I do not believe the nation they happened to start their career in to be relevant to the origins of the artist itself. Their career may have originated there, but the artist did not, and I do not see why the origins of artist has to be blurred with the origins of their career.

Birthplace is unimportant when considering nationality, by the way. Same goes for heritage - nationality is primarily based on where someone was raised or lives/has lived, and legally it is effectively citizenship.

Nationality is not merely random chance of birthplace. can be changed, changed to whatever you wish it to be. A man can be born in Spain with entirely Spanish heritage on both sides, yet should he migrate to, say, Germany, he can become a German citizen - and thus making him German. It is not some set-in-stone universal law that cannot be altered - a man's nationality is what he wants it to be, and it is legally and officially recognised via citizenship.

Rihanna has lived in the US for a good number of years, more than long enough to apply for dual US-Barbadan citizenship or even renounce her Barbadan citizenship. Thus far, she has opted not to do this, indicating that she has consciously chosen not to become an American. That is her choice, and it is incorrect to contradict this on this article.

And besides, even if nationality was based solely on place of birth, it still has a massive part to play in the development of the person, their personality, and their identity as a whole. Additionally, she would still originate from Barbados and Barbados alone, so it's a moot point.

Again, I strongly suggest that the article is changed from its current state. WiseNinja1 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I will be correcting the article in 2 days' time. Do not revert it when I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits will be reverted as you have been given specific answers both by me and an administrator above.--Harout72 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a ballot box, and administrators do not have sole control over information. Decisions are made based on the merits of the argument behind them, and thus the edit shall be made. Both of you made extremely weak arguments against mine, and both of you have made comments suggesting that neither of you should be making edits regarding origins and nationality - incorrectly believing that the nationality of an inventor plays no part in what country is attributed to an invention in your case, and Kww mixing up nationality with ethnicity (as well as believing that birthplace is what solely determines nationality).

I have offered up an excellent argument, and you have both failed to counter it in any sense of the word. In addition, you both have opted out of the discussion - therefore you cannot complain when this eventually goes through.

I will make the change, and when you revert it I shall change it back. I will take this as far as this needs to go, and I shall see this article corrected. WiseNinja1 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

YAWN, why is this even being discussed???? — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! I shouldn't even have to be telling people this! It's pretty shocking that this hasn't been fixed already! WiseNinja1 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was in favor of Harout72, and Kww, I don't think people really care about the origin of the particular artist, just the origin of their career. If they wanted to know their nationality and what not, they would click on the artist's name, plain and simple. Sorry for the confusion. :) — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 15:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Khushbakht, 27 May 2011

Please add the sibling duo of the subcontinent Nazia Hassan and Zohaib Hassan to this list. It also says in the wikipedia article that they sold over 60 million records worldwide.

More sources: An Indian article also states this (Remember India and Pakistan are enemies. Why are Indians saying this for a Pakistani?)

Young Tarang alone sold 40 million copies in Asia. Again from an Indian article.

Another Indian article which states the same.

From Telegraph India:

Please do add her name to the list.

Khushbakht (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done This list requires evidence of certified sales, please see the percentiles of the required certified sales at the top of this page.--Harout72 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please add the sibling duo of the subcontinent Nazia Hassan and Zohaib Hassan to this list. It also says in the wikipedia article that they sold over 60 million records worldwide.

More sources: An Indian article also states this (Remember India and Pakistan are enemies. Why are Indians saying this for a Pakistani?)

Their album, Young Tarang, alone sold 40 million copies in Asia. Again from an Indian article.

Another Indian article which states the same.

Here is another source Telegraph India:

Please do add her name to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khushbakht (talkcontribs) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Nazia and Zohaib Hassan

I would like to point out that the duo was a rage in Asia and not the West and I have quoted the most reliable sources of Asia.

However, if you are talking about certified sales, then I guess they would be 15% as the siblings were active in the 80s. So 15% of 60 million would be 9 million.

Their album Young Tarang was the biggest album of Asia at that time and sold 40 million copies among Asian youth. These are Indian sources.

Their album Disco Deewane is sure to have sold 14 million if you think 40 million is over the top. The second is a Brazilian source.

This woman was highly known in Asia. So it is not a big deal that she made at least 60 million sales of which 14 million are certified.

Read a story the Guardian did on her.

Thank you for replying. But do reconsider and have an open mind with my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khushbakht (talkcontribs) 02:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The figures that you are referring to are claimed figures for actual sales, certified sales would come from certifying agencies such as RIAA (for US), BPI (for UK), Bundesverband Musikindustrie (for Germany) etc. The certification-databases for more than dozen markets are posted above at the top, immediately below from the percentiles. By the way, your sources above are not reliable with an exception of this, which is by The Guardian and it doesn't seem to mention any sales figures. 15% is required for those who've begun before 1975, the percentage bracket is higher for all after that. Please see the requirements again posted at the top.--Harout72 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from LuPaPeSe, 29 May 2011

|- |Rihanna || Barbados || 2005–present || 2005 || R&B / Pop / Dance /Hip-hop || 128 million |- LuPaPeSe (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Not doneFirst, your source is not reliable enough; second, 80 million is as high as it can get for Rihanna at the moment as she has only 54 million in certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)