Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 4

message: RAHMAN needs source citation. can any one cite his more THAN 300  million hundred record  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.2.235 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[AR rahman]]  

message: http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/sinatra_frank/bio.jhtml
Somehow I am going to consider VH1 a greater authority on music than some German website.
In 1993, he re-signed to Capitol Records and recorded Duets, on which he re-recorded his old favorites, joined by other popular singers ranging from Tony Bennett to Bono of U2 (none of whom actually performed in the studio with him). It became his biggest-selling album, with sales over 3,000,000 copies, and was followed in 1994 by Duets II, which won the 1995 Grammy Award for Traditional Pop Performance. 
So if his top selling album sold 3 million copies... I find it hard to really believe that he sold 200 million albums... let alone the 600 claimed on that German source.
Not to mention that every single reference I have ever seen for the top selling solo artists of all time rank Elvis Presely #1 and Garth Brooks #2.... and Garth is at something like 116 million album sales.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.234.128.56 (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank Sinatra 200+??

message: Since when does illegal downloading start in 1990, and since when does illegal downloading hurt music sales? Proof of this would be useful before declaring it a bias. The-bus 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias towards older artists

message: quit fucking deleting her name, she had a fucking source!
Ravenshield936 09:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayumi Hamasaki

message: Vicky Leandros has officially exceeded the 150 million records according to Sony Classical and other sources.It appears in many catalogues in Greece and other countries. Here she appears for more than 50 millions. I think is wrong.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.219.44.116 (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vicky Leandros (singer

message: hey i dont noe how but can sum1 plz add pink 2 the 50 million list cause i dont know how but she has sold over 50 million...if u dont believe me look at her page on this site
: Her wiki page says she sold 30 million, and all websites found says 18 - 22 million. So sorry to say, Pink shopuld not be on the list. 60.234.242.196 03:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pink (singer)

message: 212.2.183.83 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rush

message: 212.2.183.83 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tupac wiki page references a link from October 2006 that says Tupac has sold 73 million. It does not say over 100 million. Eminem's link says he has sold 70 million. So, yes, this should be moved. 60.234.242.196 03:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I recall this being discussed and researched in November, so went back and checked this. The link says 70m for Eminem, but is 2005. His new album has sold 7.5 million, so 77.5 million total. This was reversed, but the research was good. Readded it back.  60.234.242.196 08:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies, that should read 5.5m for his new album. 60.234.242.196 08:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just need a citation claiming over 75 million.--Son of Somebody 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tupac and Eminem

message: Can anybody make an extension to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.17.28.62 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about best selling in different genres? 

message: According to the evidence for the inclusion of Michael Jackson here, he has sold 750 million records?  Eh?  Sorry but that claim has come from a fans website and is total rubbish.  There is no way on earth that he has sold that many.  I doubt if he has sold in excess of 500 million.  250 million+, I think is acceptable.  He is not and never will be in the same sales league as the Beatles and Elvis.  If someone has the real evidence - i.e. sales per record - then happy to concede, but I doubt it given that his US Sales alone are less than 100 million.  
Should there be a 500 million + section for Elvis, Beatles and Michael Jackson? They have sold so much more than the rest of the artists in the 250M+ section that a new section should be creating to show that these 3 artists are in a league of their own. 59.100.94.3 05:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see why. There's the section explaining it all at the top, and the seperate best seller article. --Robdurbar 11:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of users have tried to make this change today. I'm not entirely against it per se, but I'd like a bit of discussion here first for an explanation of why its needed. --Robdurbar 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 million + section 

message: I reversed this as most links on the net are saying 100 - 150m. As they have sold 68m in the USA alone (RIAA), it does not sound feasible that their world total is less than 100m as they are the most popular heavy metal band in the world. 60.234.242.196 08:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AC/DC

message: I have recently read a very informative article which listed many reliable source (unfortunately I can not find the article again) which states Abba has not sold over 250 million albums - as speculated - but they have actually sold something more like 160 million albums. This sounds more accurate to me - as in reality in countries like the U.s. - not many of Abba's albums were mega-hits. The areas they were mega-hits - only sold in the hundred thousands. In the U.S. (which is usually the biggest selling market for most artists Abba has sold under 20 million albums - something around 17 million). In proportion for Abba to have sold 250 million copies worldwide - they most likely would have had to sell something like 50 million or more in the U.S. alone.
abba , rod stewart? queen? 250 million? this is too funny --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.11.76 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the RIAA site's "top artists" chart, ABBA sold 10.5 million albums in the US. I don't dispute the 250 million+ figure but still, if Led Zeppelin is reported to have sold 300 million records then the ABBA figure is probably as accurate as that is. Led Zeppelin never released any singles which were successful. And I'm very sure that their single sales worldwide won't even cumulatively add up to 1 million. On the other hand, they weren't very popular outside the US. I doubt they've sold 200 million records outside the US(109.5 million in the US alone) but the sources say they did so meh... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XXSaifXx">Saif</a> 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abba - not over 250 million 

message: This page breaks down 50,75,100, and 250 million. Please add over 1 Billion and 500 million to the top of this list.  The Beatles and Elvis Presley are in a class by themselves at over 1 billion and Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra over 500 million.  They deserve distinction with their extraordinary success far beyond all the other categories. 
Avatar413 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the Best selling music artist page. The claims of 500 million and 1 billion are nowhere near certain enough to create sub sections. --Robdurbar 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 Million and 1 Billion Categories? 

message: who keeps deleting Oasis off the 50 million or more list, they have definitely not sold over 50 million and pretty much every site says so.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.133.12 (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oasis- 50 million 

message: Hey, I've got a question: why aren't Ace of Base and 2 Unlimited in this list? I don't no how much they sold, but both groups were a hype in the 90's, and both groups were populair in at least 4 continents. Perhaps they don't reach any of the numbers in this list, but I still would think that it would be at least something to find out. Maybe anybody knows more about the record-sales of these both groups? --84.104.123.100 17:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, the producer of Ace of Base has a new band [since lik,e 10 years ago XD} called Sweetbox im not sdure of their sales, but i remember seing something that they have sold over 70 Million in compilations alone. not sure if this is true, memory could be failing me here. XD (Impracticable 13:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ace of Base/ 2 Unlimited

message: Ayumi Hamasaki has just sold her 50 millionth album. I think she deserves to be on the list, first off, she meets the requiremtns, second, she is the best selling female artist ever.
She just sold her 50 millionth about a week ago. i will go look to see if i can find her sales estimates on RIAJ or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Impracticable (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayumi Hamasaki, 50 Million

message: A recent BBC radio documentary by the respected chart and music critic Paul Gambacini has quoted Johnny Mathis as having sold over "350-Million records" worldwide. This is proberbly true given his 50 years on the music charts. His albums have sold consistantly well with over 73 charted in the USA charts alone. His UK albums have also been big sellers as have Canadian, French,South American, Australian,South African and some other european countrys. Then there is his massive single sales in the early years and late seventies.
Some notable USA sales are his Merry Cristmas album from 1958 still available with approx 6 million sales, His 1958 Greatest Hits approx 4 million, Heavenly from 1959 sold 2.5 milion
to name but some. His total stay on the USA album charts have given him the 3rd highest total stay just less than Elvis and Sinatra.Mathis selling 350 million records seems proberbly about right.
Alla Pugacheva, Bing Crosby, Chubby Checker, Cliff Richard, Julio Iglesias, Nana Mouskouri, Rod Stewart, and Tino Rossi have not sold over 250 [b]million[/b] albums.  Almost all sources have little to no credibility, I suggest removing them from the list until finding proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even though I'm uncertain about some of the rest, the sources seem to be credible, and their careers have left a staple on society.
Example: Chubby Checker - The first source is a poster made to advertise him, of course it's going to be partial.  The second source looks like it was made by someone fooling around in HTML.  It later goes on to say tickets will be on sale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leethal (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm pretty sure you're right about most of those people there but Bing Crosby should definitely be up there. Bing Crosby was more popular in his time than Frank Sinatra was at any time... So if you're going to remove Bing, you have to remove Frank. Other than that, I don't know about Rod Stewart's sales much. Can't say. He's probably closer to 200 million sales...but still...when you've got Led Zeppelin up there with the dodgy "Polar Music Award" site as source, removing Rod would be hypocrisy since Led Zeppelin's albums never did well outside the US. At best they've sold 150 million albums, and most sources quote 175-200 million, but it seems everyone's using the highest figures they can find to promote their favourite bands. Same case with ABBA. Yeah sure, they've definitely sold upwards of 250 million records but not 370 million...I mean come on! They've only sold 10.5 million albums in the US and probably a million singles there at best. XXSaifXx 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you need to check the last line of the introduction :"This means that these figures should be considered claims, not facts." We don't take any old website - fourms, pure fancruft etc - but becasue there's no official body recording these figures, we have to be fairly flexible. --Robdurbar 10:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add that instead of complaining about what you *think* is wrong, then why not try and a better source instead. I think it would be great if the page used more paper sources. --Maitch 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is EXACTLY what I just said.  I can't find a reputable source for Chubby Checker, so if someone can find one that's better, that's great.  Until then though, he should not be on the list.  And why would I try and find a better source for what I know is wrong, that doesn't make any sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leethal (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JOHNNY MATHIS 350 million record sales worldwide.

message: Ozzie's page says 70+ million album sales, but is uncited. Anyone? (The Elfoid 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLACK SABBATH 

message: Given her now 48 years in the industry, I am CERTAIN Diana Ross is somewhere in the top 10. Anyone got any idea of record sales for Diana?
If it's just Diana Ross solo, then she is not anywhere in the top ten all time. The Supremes should've been mentioned. They are not top ten, but they are definitely up there.UberCryxic 17:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Top ten best-sellers? Even combined with The Supremes, her sales are suprisingly low. Yes she has had a lot of #1's (which rockets her on the list), but her album sales aren't that good. In the US she only has a few platinum albums (including The Supremes) and not one double platinum (though it should be noted that her Greatest Hits album with The Supremes I think should be x2 platinum since it was #1 for 5 weeks). Together, I would like to say she's somewhere in the 50-100 million range, but not any higher. Ayumi4u 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diana Ross/Supremes 

message: The listing of genres is not helpful because it relies on editors' opinions and has the potential to take up too much space (see the Alice Cooper entry). For example, Led Zeppelin recorded songs with a folk rock influence, but I will venture to say that Led Zeppelin albums or CDs have never been so categorized in any retail environment, and this article is about commercial performance. The Beatles performed much more folk-rock than Zeppelin, yet they are labelled much more clearly as simply "pop/rock". But since this article, like so many others, appears to be 'controlled' by anonymous IPs who will always insist that Queen is "prog-rock", I suppose this is just me spitting into the wind...--Son of Somebody 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Queen is mainly Hard Rock and Heavy Metal. Their first album was more like a classic power metal rock-opera. The second one too, in addition to being a concept album. A Night At The Opera has "The Prophet's Song" - clearly prog-rock but not enough to make Queen a prog-rock band. XXSaifXx 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genres

message: This entire section is speculation and really should go.  Corvus cornix 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree. It adds no value to the list. 60.234.242.196 22:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. This page needs a disclaimer because worldwide sales tend to be inaccurate. Ayumi4u 20:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Possible biases of this page"

message: I think this would be great idea. Right now the sub-categories go as followed: 50, 75, 100, huge gap to 250, 500. This way people would get a more general understanding and people wouldn't think that people ike Dolly Parton or A. R. Rahman have sold as much as Mariah Carey and Celine Dion. I don't think the 175/200 is needed more than the 75 mill ever was. I'll organize it myself if that's what the people want. What's everyones opinion of this? Ayumi4u 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a 175/200 million sub-category 

message: the source given in the Enya entry is a little lightwight (a review on a cd sales site). I'll replace it with the respective section in the FAQ of her official site. Wefa 00:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enya 

message: Ok Dudes, Just add Ayumi. 
Under the RIAJ she has sold over 50 million in Japan Alone.
Under Oricon She has sold about 47 million in Japan Alone.
She has also sold many more in other countries. 
She deserves to be on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.162.2 (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most agree she deserves to be on the list, but it is finding the reference that is allowable. Linking to wiki is not Maggott2000 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayumi Hamasaki 

message: LISTEN TO ME ARTIST LIKE DEEP PURPLE AND BOB DYLAN DID NOT SELL OVER 100 MILLION ALBUMS YOUR SOURCES ARE FROM FAN SITES. MOST OF ALL CHUBBY CHECKER DID NOT SELL OVER 250 MILLION ALBUMS HIS SOURCE IS FROM HIS OWN WEBSITE THAT HE CONTROLS EACH OVER HIS ALBUMS. HE HAS ONLY RELEASED A HAND FULL OF SINGLES AND RELEASED 8 ALBUMS. HIS SINGLES WOULD HAVE TO SELL 50 MILLION AND EACH OF HIS ALBUMS WOULD HAVE TO SELL 25 MILLION, HIS BEST SELLING ALBUM HASNT EVEN SOLD 10 MILLION WORLDWIDE.
I take you seriously, as anyone writing in all caps is always serious.--Gustav Lindwall 19:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion

message: This was discussed once before, but without concensus. I would like to propose that the overall chart structure be amended. This is to make it be the article it is reporting o be. Rather than having a 'source' column, this would make more sense to be the 'claim' column, with sources tagged beside it. The reason being is that although it lists the artists it does not show the actual claim, so Users need to go to every link to verify. Also with the ability to now sort the columns, Users can then sort by claim if need be.
The other area this article is lacking, is an 'alternative' area for artists that have sold under multiple groups/as solo for example Paul McCartney, Cher, Robbie Williams, Michael Jackson where their representation on the list is much lower in some cases, as they are separated. I believe Cher's sales are impacted the most. Maybe an addendum at the bottom with a note specifying full sales by these artists. Maggott2000 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to change of format 

message: please, what's the definition of "alphabetical order" in this article ?!?!???!?!? anyhow, at the moment it's VERY wrong ordered!!! or it's a joke 84.227.195.32 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  alphabetical order ??? 

message: Wham! was George Michael, so shouldnt those sale figures (aprox. 40 million) be added to his solo-sales of 85? Wham! was essentially a solo-project with Andrew playing the guitar.
62.194.76.69 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Michael 

message: Firstly, and dramatic changes as has been done has to go through discussion. You do not just go ahead and do it. Secondly, wikipedia is about 'verifiable sources', and all these are verifiable. The fact that they are from official sites does not amke them a conflict of interest, as the actual artists did not participate in the sites. Thirdly, if the ones selected were to be removed, then the same can be said for MJ's (conveniently left on, as User is part of the MJ Project). Forthly, if wikipedia were to use unreliability as a criteria, then the entire article would need to be removed. The only reliable source is the sales data, and nobody collects these globally. UWC is the most referred to, but only annual sales. Maggott2000 00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: Just wondering but hasnt she sold enough to be on this list?
Yeah id say she has too need a good reference :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanjohns (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christina Aguilera?? 

message: I was thinking about this recently and i decided to share it with all you... Dont you think that britney has sold over 100 million records. i mean there isn't any source that claims total sales for her less than 100 million. just take a look at that.
... baby one more time: 28 million
oops i did it again: 24 million
britney: 15 million
in the zone: 10 million
greatest hits: my prerogative: 8 million
B in the mix: 1 million
total: 86 million albums! + about 50 million singles = 136 million!!!
she has surely sold over 100 million records worldwide! what do others say!?
You cant include single sales with album sales if so then this hole page needs re sorting.
proof about the album sales:
 
--Mysterious Spy 10:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Britney Spears be put in the 100 million category? 

message: The website used as a source states "Sinatras Songs, darunter "New York, New York", sollen weltweit mit etwa 600 Millionen Schallplatten verkauft worden sein." "Sollen" means "is supposed to" or "is said to" in this context, and no source is given. This cannot be regarded as a good quality reference for this information.
The RIAA http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt , surely a reliable source, states that Sinatra sold 25.5 million certified units in the US (cf. 170 million for the Beatles). It seems extremely unlikely that Sinatra sold over 600 million in the world, but only 25.5 million in the US. It is much more plausible to place Sinatra in the 100 million plus category.  AussieBoy 13:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sinatra falls into the same catagory as Crosby, in that he was a big seller prior to RIAA was set up in 1952, so none of his sales will be credited except those after 1952. So comparing to The Beatles is not valid. Maggott2000 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank Sinatra (again)

message: Bing is generally estimated to have sold approximately 1 Billion disks.
Even if you feel there isn't enough documentation from the 1930s and 40s to justify the 1 Billion claim, he should at least *appear* somewhere on the list.
:Bing Crosby should indeed be on the list. A reference stating that he sold 900 million records is http://www.noblemind.com/toptenlists/Best_Selling_Musicians Best Selling Musicians: Top selling musicians of all time ranked by number of albums sold  This has previously been removed by an apparently one-eyed Michael Jackson supporter, on the basis that Bing is pictured with other musicians. There are plenty of pictures of Michael Jackson with the Jackson 5 too--so what? The reference clearly indicates a sales total of 900 million for Bing Crosby. And btw, I am most certainly NOT a Bing Crosby fan. I just think his contribution (supported by an appropriate reference) should be noted.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AussieBoy (talk • contribs). 
:Have seen this link also, but the problem is that all the detail from this almanac is derived from wikipedia, so is a wiki clone, so cannot be used. The point is not that he belongs on the list, the point is that it is hard to find a reference that states it. Although your comment about MJ sales being inclusive of J5 is true, removing J5 sales he remains in the same sales bracket. There is another reference I found from Time magazine from 1945 saying Bring had sold 75 million worldwide back then, but it is hard to get from 75 million to 900 million. Good luck in finding a good reference. Maggott2000 11:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is unacceptable, and deserves an apology is the language used in the above comment. Maggott2000 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what evidence you have that the Noblemind link is based on Wikipedia. I am happy to accept that this is so if you have evidence. In any case, another link stating sales of 400 million at the time of his death is  This looks OK to me so I will go ahead and use it. AussieBoy 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence is in the articles about each of the artists. You will note they are word for word what wikipedia has, therefore the article has been derived from wikipedia. The new link provided is exactly what is required, so should not cause any issues. Good finding Maggott2000 09:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to Bing Crosby?

message: I moved Pink Floyd from the 250 million bracket to the 100 million bracket. The cite for the 250 million claim was circular linking. It was merely a page that copied text from Pink Floyd's own wikipedia page, which listed the 250 million figure while the cite for the claim, at About.com, says 200 million. I also edited Pink Floyd's page to reflect the figure from the cite used. 74.77.208.52 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two links are wikipedia based articles i.e the information is directly from the wikipedia Pink Floyd page. The third link also closely resembles this list, but does not specify as such - just says it was gathered from various sources. There is enough doubt to suggest it is from wiki also. Therefore none of these links are relevant. 60.234.242.196 04:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: two links are valid references. The hitzonly is forum based, so is not. There is a policy on what constitutes a verified source and what does not. It is not decided by upon editors to this list, and they are just trying to keep within the boundaries. '10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pink Floyd

message: can we semi protect this page im tired of having to revert vandals. Ideas anyone.Realist2 20:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an easy process. Just list it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I agree that this needs protection due to the rampant vandalism, but it should be noted that this protection will only stop those from anonymous IP addresses, whereas the vandalism is across registered Users also. Same can be said for List of best-selling albums worldwide Maggott2000 00:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Didn't say it wasn't. Said I agreed with your decision Maggott2000 10:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi protection 

message: watha hell happened to eminem...??
pls somebody add eminem back to the list--Frans Adiesha 13:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eminem 

message: okay who deleted Shania Twain off the list? She has sold over 75 million copies worldwide but she's not on any of the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.162.21 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SHANIA TWAIN 

message: Someone keeps removing the 1 billion sales for no apparent reason. Both the artists in this cateogry are backed up by readily verifiable sources, one from guiness world records and the other from the official website. These sourced figures are twice as high as the previous 500 millions section, so it should warrent its own. And before anyone even starts up on debating the truthfulness of these figures remember, wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. --124.176.60.126 11:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 billion sales caterogry 

message: Aren't the Dixie Chicks the greatest selling female band in history? Where are they?
AChrispy 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie Chicks 

message: Why is he not on the list? Hes sold more than 60million records in the US alone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.170.96 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Springsteen 

message: I have no idea why Celine Dion is not even near the top of the 100 million albums section. Her Wikipedia page, and her record label announced that she has sold over 200 million albums worldwide.  She had released 36 albums and 139 singles. She outsold Madonna and The Backstreet Boys.  Why is she so low on the chart?  She was higher the last time I checked, which was a couple of days ago.
ALBUMS DISCOGRAPHY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine_Dion_albums_discography
SINGLES DISCOGRAPHY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine_Dion_singles_discography
Now please move it into it's appropriate place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.79.162 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celine Dion 

message: I think there should be one for 30million  because I added people like SWV, TLC, EN VOGUE, BEYONCE, JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE and etc to the 50 Million and under category..then you guys erased it which he pretty dumb because it says 50 million and under.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.56.9 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 30 Million category

message: "Bias of fans, who feel that quantity of records sold, equates to quality of music" - Why is this a constraint on determining which artists are best-selling? This is, if anything, only a constraint on determining which artists have the highest-quality music, which is entirely outside the scope of this page. -Silence 04:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of music?

message: why is robbie williams not on the 50 million list  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BERTIE LOST FAN (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robbie Williams

message: "100 million records or more/less"
"75 million records or more/less"
"50 million records or more/less"
Is it me, or does this not make any sense? What is "more/less" supposed to mean?? Does it mean "approximately" (as in the phrase "more or less")? Needs clarifying in the article I think. Matt 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing headings 

message: The Beatles are under the 500 million table. But in the reference link to "About.com", it says, and I quote: EMI and the Guinness Book of World Records estimate that more than 1-billion Beatles albums, singles and CDs have been sold worldwide". Surely this is good enough for them to be put into a '1 billion or more' table as when reading the article it sounds like all the artists in that table (Beatles, Crosby, Presley, Jackson and Sinatra) have sold between 500-999 million. Poiuytre (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Beatles - 1 billion table

message: I know its not as important as everything else, but theres some typos in the article. Could anyone fix it up, or should I do it???Rakhtael (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo

message: On checking just a few random entries another editor and myself have found several of the citations are nothing more than links to Wikipedia mirros or blog entries which do not meet up to WP:RS policy. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for its own content. Some degree of scrutiny should be undertaken to verify the weblinks used in this article. As for now its standing as a reliable resource for information has been compromised by the Wiki-mirror links. It has been an unstable article for as long as its been around on Wikipedia. If the reliability of the content can't be improved the article may have to go to an AfD to decide its fate. 156.34.221.33 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found and removed a few that did not have references. Furthermore, is this article even necessary? 220.253.8.139 (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. As long as all artists' sales in it are sourced, it's a fairly good resource. Funeral 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no such thing as too many sources as long as they meet up to WP:RS and support WP:V. Book/Pro publication sources are better than web sources since most web sources are either unreliable, masked Wiki mirrors, or peacock self-refs with ballooned sales figures coming directly from the artists themselves. 156.34.212.152 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the extra sources were either dead/non-reliable/unneeded. This article receives a lot of sneaky vandalism, so a special thanks to those editors that try keeping it free of vandalism, and in a neutral point view. There are indeed many musicians from around the world missing from this list. Unfortunately, finding reliable sources is not easy. Even for musicians such as Fela Kuti, and Bob Dylan. 220.253.25.106 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources need cconfirmation on reliability 

message: This whole thing makes me sick. Even sources that meet WP:RS criteria are dated AFTER they were first posted on Wikipedia. Led Zeppelin and AC/DC are just two examples. Those bands' respective Wiki articles claimed 300 million and 150 million albums sold long before more "reputable" sources published those figures as "fact". Now those "reputable sources" are used as citations on Wikipedia to back up figures that were started on Wikipedia in the first place. It's disgusting. Lazy journalists have been using Wikipedia as a source and now we have to swallow these figures because they're subsequently published in "reputable" sources? Please see the Talk Pages of Led Zeppelin and AC/DC to see what I'm dealing with. And it's far from just them. This disease has infected the articles for Pink Floyd, The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Queen, and on and on. What can be done about it? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to some trend towards building some artifical league table of record sales so as to prove 'my favourite band is better than yours'. What can be done is for someone with some Wiki authority to declare that there is no one who compiles data on worldwide sales and all this nonsense can be removed. Will this ever happen.........--Egghead06 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: God, I hope it happens, because this thing is a farce. And people are calling me a vandal for removing this garbage. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Michael Jackson claim of 750 million sales worldwide? His main article lists a news article as a reference. http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/music/main3461884.shtml??source=RSS&attr=_3461884 Iam (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen this exact thing on many websites, even so called creditable ones. This is why sales data provided by the record companies is most important. Their data is audited for tax purposes. The data by a recording industry association is from the record companies and undergoes another audit for their awards (assuming the record company wants to do that) I personally do not like this website, I have noticed many false statements and biographies for Japanese musicians, an industry that I'm familiar with since it is part of my career. So I have been at war with many other editors over those articles, and finally made some progress to change things. Also it took me a long time, but I found a few reliable sources for Japanese musicians for this article, which dispelled nonsense written in other articles. I think wiki articles for musicians should be basic, and include nothing but official information, and not allow stupid things such as "rolling stone magazine listed him as 5th greatest guitarist of all time" and other such nonsense. 220.253.4.192 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiality

message: Can someone please explain this? "Note also, that with the exception of the 500 Million level, artists within each category are sorted alphabetically, NOT by rank.". It isn't by sales data, not by alphabetical listing, or any other order that I can make out for the 500m section. Why separate it differently to the rest of the list? Why not just keep it all alphabetical? 60.234.242.196 (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the alphabetical order within the 500 mil. section. Since artists were neither by rank nor alphabetically, I thought we should have at least one.--Harout72 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking 

message: It states as fact that three artists have been nominated in the past as being the worlds best-sellers, yet there is no reference or evidence to suggest this (in the artical). As such it is open to vandalism, as anyone can add lesser known groups as they are as open to the speculation and non validity of those listed. Curiously, if you read the MJ page, it states he was awarded the "Artist of the Millennium" award, but read the reference, and he wasn't. Therefore does such a reference to him being the world's best-seller exist? Also take into account, the award for "Most Successful Artist" has not been stated as being for best-selling. Success can be attributed to many things. If non-referenced, I think it should state that the best-selling artist is unknown - fullstop. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have mentioned that before, and tried to remove it from the article. I also read that his album "thriller" sold more than 100 million copies, which according to the record company is not true, because they mentioned the album sold around 45 million copies (that is a huge difference) this whole article garbage. I quickly received this in a few minutes  it is interesting that in Michael Jackons own market, his thriller album is the second best selling album with just over 20 million copies sold. That means it had to sell more than 80 million copies in foreign markets to reach such a statement, and where is the audit from those markets to acknowledge such a claim? 220.253.4.192 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to his record company. In addition, they stated his album "thriller" selling around 25 million. Information that is audited for legal reasons. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Selling Artists 

message: I requested for page protection as the vandalism is at ridiculously high level from anonymous IPs mostly. Semi-protection will expire on the 16th of August, 2008. --Harout72 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great now I can't edit the article anymore. Would of been better to request those editors to be banned from editing. Many of the vandals include new accounts as well, which is likely someone being a sock-puppet. 220.253.4.192 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I know you help out a lot keeping vandals out, but I just felt that it was really going out of control. Frankly, it's quite annoying to put all the time into reverting versions over and over when we could put that time to toss out those artists with unreliable sources or locate better/more reliable sources, because as far as I am concerned it's impossible to fight against every single whelp.--Harout72 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: His Sold Well Over 75 Million Albums + Over 15 Million Singles / Check His Wikipedia Page For Sources  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibringgoodnews (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yeah So Why Aint Tupac On There

message: Dylan still plays music. so it has to be "60s - Present". -- 80.131.91.40 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dylan 

message: What happen to the jacksons didnt the sell over 100 million. The were on the list prior why havce thge been removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.55.126 (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.jackson5concerttickets.com/jackson-5-tour-information
76.126.15.78 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Jacksons/ Jackson 5 

message: While he's not exactly the most well-known name on this list, Karajan is very much in the wrong category. He should be moved up into the 200-500 million section. The source used for his placing in the 100-200 million section is a 1990 New York Times article that has the disadvantages of being both nearly 20 years out of date and significantly under-researched. In his 2007 book The Life and Death of Classical Music, (p.137) musicologist Norman Lebrecht suggests that the number is at least 200 million. Moreover, even his figures do not take into account compilation CDs where Karajan was not necessarily the main artist; I think it's certainly justifiable to consider these just as valid as 'single' recordings, which is a luxury this list affords to pop artists. And he doesn't take into account internet downloads, which are significant because classical music sales represent a big chunk in that market - as much as 12%. Karajan's main record label (Deutsche Grammophon) was also the first to open their own dedicated download store, alongside what iTunes etc offer, and the majority of Karajan's recordings are available to download. Karajan also remains one of their top selling artists on an annual basis. Even if the number were something like 205 million, and I would suggest it's a good deal higher than that (closer to 225-30), he should still qualify for the 200-500 category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbert von Karajan 

message: It says http://www.bowiewonderworld.com/faq.htm#m08 that Bowie has sold over 140 million albums.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.237.10 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bowie 

message: Iron Maiden has only sold 60 million albums(reference from a norwegian tv show). The source in this article isn't specific, and Metallica(thrash metal) has been stated in the movie "Metal - A Headbangers Journey" to the best selling metal band ever, Iron Maiden is Heavy Metal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.1.120 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Maiden 

message: *Tupac Shakur sold more than 75 mio. copies, so every normal human would put him in the list "75 to 100", the 67 mio. that are statet are probably wrong or they just counted the albums and not also the singles f.e. the single Dear Mama sold 3 mio. alone....and all people who dont believe it read the xxl magazin from october 2006.......or watch resurrection......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjDoubleR (talk • contribs) 07:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tupac Shakur

message: why ever deleted green day from the list? they have sold nearly 60 million copies, and i put them almost 5 times in their correspondet place with a huge source, and ever deleted them..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maul day (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day 

message: I have here a reliable source which says that David Bowie has sold 136 Million albums worldwide, please add him to to respective catergory on the list.
Source: http://classicrock.about.com/od/bandsandartists/p/david_bowie.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GigashadowX (talk • contribs) 16:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since About.com is a unit of The New York Times Company, then the suggested source is reliable enough. I added David Bowie into the list, within the section of 100-200 million.--Harout72 (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However, when I added Hibari Misora to the list, with an article written by the NY Times, it was removed? She has sold more than 100 million these days, but can't use television or radio as a reference. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

text: This article  was about her death and was published in 1989, and it clearly states in English that she had sold 68 million records at that time, including 45 million singles. It was told the NY Times is not a reliable reference, so I had to find another reference. The new reference is more recent (but still 10 years out of date) and it only mentions her record sales (which were at that time 80 million) and not the sales of her singles. So she had to remain in the 75 million bracket. 220.253.8.46 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, since many artists continue to sell records after their deaths, a source almost twenty years old is not as good as a more recent one, even though the latter is not in English, but can satisfy WP:RSUE. Accordingly, the last edit will be reverted and should not be replaced. Take it to the RS noticeboard if you think it's a faulty reference but if there is any more edit-warring on this article, it will be fully-protected until the parties achieve consensus. --Rodhullandemu 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Im actually quite lost now, there are three different arguments going on, its getting silly, one at a time please lol. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Bowie (2)

message: Eminem is still in the music industry he has a new album coming out end of 2008.(according to wkipedia).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.175.230 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eminem 

message: How is rapweekly.com a reliable source? 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eminem source 

message: Bu January 2008, Dame Shirley Bassey had sold 135 million records, but is not included in this list. Can we please amend it? Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.6.34 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dame Shirley Bassey 

message: can we say that the eagles were active from 1971–1980 then from 1994–present beccause the gap counts against them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.130.195 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eagles