Talk:List of best-selling music artists

More Variable and Reliable Source

To all editor, I think we should use more variable source in the list. And not only stick to source from Telegraph or CBS News. Please Try to find a source from another broadsheet newspaper around the world and for those who think that The Daily Telegraph is reliable. Then you should read this source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9450131/Singer-Adele-babysits-for-a-strangers-child-at-high-street-cafe.html) Adele's 21 album sold 220 million?, This is a proof that telegraph is an error source and we use telegraph in the list ONLY for temporary. I hope you guys understand that. thanks Politsi (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Using well known respected sources is to give readers (and other editors who are not usually involved with the page) confidence that what is on the list is accurate. I would prefer we keep using well known reliable sources until declared unreliable by the reliable sources noticeboard and not use local newspapers who in paper form only get sold in small areas. Yes more mainstream sources can get it wrong, in which case, an alternative source is found and discussed on this page if necessary. I'll refrain from changing any more refs until we get consensus on this. Mattg82 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A well known respected source like The Telegraph that you add in the list for Stewart and Elton John can make some error too, I already proof it. It means that we can not only rely on some well news organization without using our brain and logical. Any kind of broadsheet newspaper from a small city or areas is reliable but still we should read it first and use our brain to decided if the contain inside can be use as a reference. But still we should avoid a gossip tabloid like The Sun, Daily Mirror, and Daily Mail. There are several artists who's still out of the list and waiting a reliable source to support their sales claim. I will bring them to the list once a broadsheet newspaper or a news organization (other than The Telegraph or CBS news) write their claim. Politsi (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: "Broadsheet" refers to the physical size of a newspaper - a broadsheet is generally 29 ¹⁄₂ by 23¹⁄₂ inches, and a tabloid is 17 by 11 inches. You're equating "tabloid" with "tabloid journalism," and assuming that broadsheets are reliable because they're not tabloids. There are cities where this would be an accurate assessment -- the New York Times vs The New York Post, for example, but in general, the physical format of a newspaper is not an appropriate measure of its reliability. JSFarman (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

All sources whether highly prestigious or not can get the sales figures wrong. Therefore, it's more important to focus on the sales figures within the articles rather than focus on the reliability. If the same figure is published by both well know reliable source(s) and also by less known source(s), of course we should work with the former.--Harout72 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Carpenter to 90m claim

I remove them from the 100m-club because they have a quite short music career, Is that okay Harout?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup, based on their certified sales, it doesn't look like they could have even sold 90 million, but it's better than 100 million.--Harout72 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

ABBA out from the 200m club

Harout, I bring ABBA to the talk page again because I just see this source (http://www.publicnow.com/view/E0827DD9750CA3046007E8CA672F045DAFFD0903?2017-04-03-23:00:57+01:00-xxx1803) from Publicnow which is the largest web disclosure platform collecting, organizing and distributing press releases, company announcements, government statements and corporate news issued by the leading organizations of the world. Inside there is a press release which is said about ABBA's 140 million records. For me personally, I hate the fact that they only have 61 million in certification but they able to join the 200m-club and it's confusing me since we can not allow Eric Clapton to join the list with his 130m records claim but in fact, his certified sales are better than ABBA and begin his music career earlier than ABBA. I think it's time to remove ABBA from the 200m club and put them with 140m claim. What do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that they don't deserve to be in the 200 million section, but that's not a source we want to remove them from there with. We'd need something much more reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Shakira

Harout. Two years ago her certification sales still not enough to enter the list for 75m claim. Sorry for bothering you, is there any re-certification of her certified sales?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid she's still at 45.5 million with her certified sales, she should have 50.2 million (67%) as she's begun charting in 1995.--Harout72 (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's 500m claim

Harout, I think we should remove his 600m claim after I considered his certification sales is not so extremely high. And quite far from The Beatles. Let's remove his 600m claim and leave him with only 500m claim, something that we can do also to Michael Jackson when we erase his inflated 400m claim. We can use this new reliable source, need your advise which one is more reliable (http://www.newsweek.com/remembering-elvis-40-years-after-his-death-650506) from Newsweek, or Times of Malta (https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120110/life-features/Pilgrimage-to-the-King-of-Rock.401767). What do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's only natural that Presley's certified sales are much lower than The Beatles'. Presley began charting in 1954, even the US didn't have a certification system back then. The RIAA has launched it's certification system in 1958. The Newsweek.com source says Elvis had already sold 500 million records when he died. And Timesofmalta source has two different figures for him, 1 billion and 500 million.--Harout72 (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the 1 billion claim. Okay then we keep his 600m claim.Politsi (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Neil Diamond

Neil Diamond was downgraded from a credible claim of 130 million to 100 million based on a reference from an article about a Neil Diamond impersonator that ran in a local paper in a tertiary market. He is about to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Grammys; this claim of 130 million is from NARAS, who may have a better grasp on record sales than a general assignment reporter Michael Martin at the La Crosse Tribune. (Here are a few of the many other sources: The Guardian, NPR from 2010, and People. JSFarman (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@JSFarman, I hope you understand this list has been build by a lot of editors to protect the reliability of artists sales claim and to prevent any lying inflated sales claim for promotion purpose by record company. Diamond's certified sales are only 69 million, we can put him with 130m claim if there is no other lower claim for him. There is a 100m-claim for Diamond from a Broadsheet paper, and that's how this list work. We use the closest sales claim to artists certified sales. Harout... I need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, I'm addressing only the edit to Neil Diamond; I have no doubt that many editors have worked diligently on this page.JSFarman (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

JSFarman, read up the Definitions on the main page. The list uses those claimed figures that are closest to artists' certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I did read it. My issue is with the source. ("To ensure the highest level of fact checking and editorial control, this list sources sales figures to news organizations and highly regarded music industry related organizations such as MTV, VH1, Billboard and Rolling Stone.") But I'm not going to argue it -- there are no official worldwide sales charts --so if the La Crosse Tribune says Neil Diamond sold 100 million records, 100 million it is. JSFarman (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@JSFarman, La Crosse Tribune isn't that bad, it is a very old Broadsheet, established on the year 1904 and a part of Lee Enterprises, a very prestigious publicly traded American media company. I'm handling all the source in this list and realize this issue about the quality of the source, that's why in the past two weeks I start to change the source from a Local Broadsheet into a very famous news organization. Although for me it looks beautiful and interesting to have a lot of kind Broadsheet newspaper source around the world. And we are not build this list for a fan base but reliability. Politsi (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

Britney Spears sold 140m records worldwide according to Billboard Music Awards 2016. She sold additional 3 million records with Glory release and this is all excluding videography that in US alone sold 13m aka 13x platinum. Baby One More Time album is certified 14x platinum and Oops I did it again 10x platinum. You used nielsen for Britney while it doesn't use BMG ArminWooz (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the Definitions on the main page to understand how the list is operated.--Harout72 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

David Bowie -Estimated sales

David Bowie's wikipedia page states that he has sold 140 million units worldwide. The list of best-selling music artists states that he has sold an estimated 100 million units. Can this please be fixed? I have never seen an estimate of Bowie sales at 100 million , as most estimates vary between 130 and 150 million units.I look forward to some feedback regarding the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowie2 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the Definitions on the main page where it says This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used.--Harout72 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Some users tried to change the 140kk copies listed there to 100kk, but there's a fan that revert all the time, even though there's a long discussion in the talk. I don't know why they didn't do an Rfc. But anyway, 100kk is the more accurate.--88marcus (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Claimed sales for Elvis Presley

For some time, the article has cited sources that claim Presley has sold a total of 500 or 600 million total units worldwide. Those sources are: Daily Herald of Arlington Heights, The News International of Pakistan, and International Business Times. Hmm. Well, yes, I guess, they do meet WP:V.

I just added four entirely up-to-date sources that state Presley has sold no less than 1 billion units. Those sources are: Rolling Stone, CNN, Agence France-Presse (that's one of the top three press services in the entire world, if you don't happen to be familiar with it), and Guinness World Records. And yet, for some strange reason, Harout72 has a problem. I'm eager to hear exactly what that is. — DCGeist (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DCGeist, not only Harout has a problem with it but also me, don't you know the meaning of INFLATED sales figure by a record company for promotional purpose? not only Elvis has a very unlogical sales figure but Michael Jackson's 750m claim and that's how this reliable list work. Harout72, me and some editor realize there are a lot of artists who's trying to promote themselves as a best-selling artists but actually NOT, the official certification sales total is the fact. And also, this list NOT a fan base, please do not using this list as your favorite artists playground. This list for reliability. Harout72, we need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This list has a field for "claimed sales". Yes or no, Politsi?

I have provided high-quality sources—that do not cite the record company—for that field for a particular artist. Yes or no, Politsi?

What the heck is your argument? You have, so far, none. — DCGeist (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DCGeist, It will be difficult to argue with some dying hard fans of artists, they are usually always try to make their Idol look the best and even forget the fact. Are you one of those Elvis's dying hard fans?. Yes or no?. Politsi (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not. My big loves are the Mekons, the Pogues, and Kate Bush. But I recognize Presley's historical significance, and per the rules of this list, I added proper citations.

I answered your question. You still haven't answered mine. Does this list have a field for "claimed sales"—yes or no? I provided high-quality sources, that do not cite the record company, for that field for a particular artist—yes or no? — DCGeist (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DCGeist Read the Definitions on the main page where it says This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used.. Yes this list for a claimed sales but do you realize that Elvis only has 213 million in certification sales? How come Elvis sold a billion records while his certification only 22% of 1 billion?. Are you understand? can you calculate logical in math way? yes or no?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72, It looks like this person really serious and possessed with 1 billion claim of Elvis's claim. We need to take some serious action. Thanks Politsi (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Be respectful, Politsi. If you will only be honorable enough to answer the questions I have long posed, I will be more than happy to answer your latest ones. — DCGeist (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Harout72, we need your help. This is serious. Thanks Politsi (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DCGeist You are edit-warring, step back and go over the Definitions on the main page. It clearly states This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used. Even the highly regarded news agencies publish inflated sales figures. This is nothing new.--Harout72 (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

But as you well know, Harout72, 1 billion is not "unrealistically high" at all. Does it make you sad? Apparently. But that's not a proper basis for reverting an entirely well-sourced edit.DocKino (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DockIno, we are here not to make some personal issue, we are here to HELP wikipedia show the BEST FACT. It's not about sad or not, it's about reliability. We don't have to make some requirement or certification sales if we only need a statement from some news organization. Politsi (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DocKino, It is unrealistically high when there is over 750 million units of gap sitting between Presley's certified sales and those 1 billion claimed sales. Let me inform you that there is many years of consensus for the way this list is operated. Read up the Definitions.--Harout72 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DocKino, we should stop this edit warring. Harout72, I think we should call some administrator patrol to handle this situation, we must kept the list reliable. Politsi (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DocKino and DCGeist, We need some consensus in this situation, we can not straight to change something before the consensus being held. I revert it to the first situation. Need your cooperation. Thank you. Politsi (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, we have a long established consensus here at this list that inflated sales figures should not be used. This is why we have the Definitions and the Edit notice both of which clearly inform how this list is operated.--Harout72 (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. The consensus already exist, so we all editor should try our best to make this list running as the established consensus. Thanks Politsi (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your mistake. Neither you, Politsi, nor Harout72 has made any case at all for why the figure provided by Rolling Stone and CNN and Agence France-Presse and Guinness World Records is "inflated". While to the contrary, I have provided a link to this carefully considered (though non-WP:V) article—"For the Billionth and the Last Time: Lifting the Lid on the King's Record Sales"—to respectfully demonstrate that, far from "inflated", the 1 billion figure at this point in time is most probably understated. Those are the facts at our disposal. Please tell us, Politsi and Harout72, why you find it so difficult to accept them. — DCGeist (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The available certified sales for Presley clearly suggest that 1 billion in sales claimed by those sources are grossly inflated. Therefore, we should stick to lower claimed figures such as 600 million in sales as well as 500 million in sales, which are also published by reliable sources but are reasonably are closer to Presley's certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you read "For the Billionth and the Last Time: Lifting the Lid on the King's Record Sales" or not? — DCGeist (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to win your argument based on articles published by fan clubs. Certified sales are what matter. Had Presley really sold 1 billion records, his certified sales would've been well above 500 million units, such isn't the case as his certified sales are only 212 million.--Harout72 (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not "trying to win [the] argument", as you so desperately are, Harout72. Just trying to have a well-informed discussion. If you weren't so scared of learning something and dared to read the article I linked to, you would immediately see that it's not your average "fan club" puff piece at all. So, I ask you once again, have you read "For the Billionth and the Last Time: Lifting the Lid on the King's Record Sales" or not? — DCGeist (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

What's your claim based on, Harout? You, the edit-warrior who thinks the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights is a better source than Rolling Stone or CNN. You are a joke. No one takes you seriously anymore.DocKino (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@DocKino and DCGeist. Is not a guarantee that CNN is a reliable source for sales claim. Let me show all of you that CNN is also make some confusing and unreliable calculation sales claimed for a very famous artists. in June 26, 2009 in the same day, CNN publishing a very far different sales claimed for Michael Jackson. One CNN reporter said Jackson sold 350 million (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.world/index.html), while another CNN reporter said Jackson sold 750 million (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/). CNN in the same day published that confusing sales claimed. How is that?. This is the evidence that a big news corp like CNN is not a guarantee. We need calculation from their certification sales. Politsi (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

DocKino you might want to remain civil with your comments. Having an argument about claimed figures is one thing, but crossing the line with stupidity is another. Daily Herald of Arlington Heights is a reliable source also. As Politsi pointed out CNN and many other reliable sources have published two different figures (350 million and 750 million) for an artist like Michael Jackson on the same day. That's no reliability on CNN's part when it comes to sales figures. 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 in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. That's why we look at artists' certified sales to avoid inflated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hilarious. You want us to believe you've "carefully weighed" the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights? What a stinking joke. Clearly, the claimed sources field makes you fucking miserable. So let's discuss cutting it out altogether. But for now, as long as it's there, you're just spewing shit, Harout72, and everyone smells it.DocKino (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Come on, Harout72, don't be shy. Share with us some of the many other citations of the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights you've culled to convince us that it "is an appropriate source for that content". I can't wait! Harout72!! The Daily Herald of Arlington Heights!!! This is going to be delicious!!!!DocKino (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, Politsi. But we're not not discussing the certified sales field. We're discussing the claimed sales field. Entirely different. And here CNN is backed up by Agence France-Presse. And by Guinness World Records. And by Rolling Stone. Have I argued that Elvis should be placed above the Beatles in the list? No. I have not. I do believe certified numbers matter most. But there is no question that multiple major news organizations recognize Presley as having sold 1 billion units. That is sufficient in of itself. In addition, for those editors wedded to the "truth", I have provided a link to, yes, an amateur but carefully researched study that should satisfy any objective observer that Presley has by this point certainly sold over 1 billion units. Those are the simple facts. As I suggested before, Politsi, I wish the Mekons were the best-selling band on earth. But we can't always get what we want. — DCGeist (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)