Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 5

message: Whitney Houston had sold over 200 million records. Just google her name + 200 million or google her name + 230 million records and you'll see tons of references everywhere.  Her label last updated her totals in 2001 as 170 million records, but since then (7 years ago) her albums (Just Whitney, One Wish), compilations (Ultimate Collection), singles and old catalogue has sold easily an addition 30 million.  It's funny how the person (below) responsible for Whitney's totals to be lowered actually is a fan of Mariah Carey and Celine Dion.  Predictable!  Whitney's total like I said as of 2001 were officially through her record lable over 170 million and today almost a decade later have been updated everywhere to over 200 million!  Here are a few links:
http://www.soundunwound.com/sp/contributor/view/Whitney+Houston?contributorId=443
http://gospel-thebigplanet.blogspot.com/2007/05/whitney-houston-sings-gospel.html
http://www.moviezen.com/celebrity/whitney-houston/biography
http://www.ticketamerica.com/whitney_houston_tickets.html
I can't manage to update the page myself but I hope someone will!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samboy01 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above are unreliable sources, if you could locate a reliable source which claims such figure as you are suggesting I'd be more than happy to move her to 200-499 bracket. She's currently listed with a reliable source coming from  Austrian Sony/BMG with 140 million in sales.--Harout72 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All record companies have Artist-biography writers and so does Sony/BMG that doesn't mean one should accuse them of practicing such a thing as posting unreliable material within their web sites as you're suggesting. I'm not familiar with the 2000 press-release by Arista you're speaking of but the paragraph on Austrian Sony/BMG which mentions the 140 million records sold is from 2002. If you look at her Certifications within RIAA she could not have sold 30 million copies from 2002 to 2008. I even checked to see whether she's had any Platinum or Gold Records in UK's market after 2000, looks like she hasn't. Same goes for the German market. If I were you, honestly, I would never believe those overinflated numbers posted by record companies, they simply try to draw more attention by those figures in order to be able to push Artists' current or upcoming releases better. And believe me, if the record companies know their artists have sold enough to earn Gold or Platinum they won't sit and wait until RIAA or BPI or Bundesverband Musikindusrie will decide to give them Certifications. Record companies breathe by marketing themselves as sufficiently as they can whether it's pushing record-figures high or bragging of multi-Certifications.  I have not come across any other reliable sources so far claiming numbers for Whitney Houston, by if you have one, please leave it here and I will replace it with what we currently have. --Harout72 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You shouldn't accuse others of not being able to read when you can't spell words such as "rectify" and "repudiate" yourself. Having said that, now read it once more but this time laying your eyes on the correct part of the entire page, and that is the very last paragraph where it says: "2002 - Die Abrechnung mit Gerüchten, Neidern und Papparazzis" and that's the title of the paragraph. The first sentence is: Wenn Whitney Houston 2003 ihren 40er feiert, wird sie sicherlich ihr bisheriges Leben Revue passieren lassen . And the second sentence is where you need to pay close attention: Eine Bilderbuch-Karriere, die jetzt schon 20 Jahre anhält und ihr mit weit über 140 Millionen verkauften Alben den Verkaufsrekord für Solo-Artists beschert hat - während der Begriff Diva bei anderen Damen wie ein zu großes Kleidungsstück wirkt, sitzt er bei Whitney wie maßgeschneidert. It talks about her Greatest-hits within the paragraph above from the one you need look at. Yes, she may have sold more than 140 million and in fact she may not even have sold 140m, either way we need a reliable source and this one for now does it. The only way to really look at artists sales is to combine all their Silver, Gold, Platinum and Diamond Certifications gotten from all around the world and add them up, and that's the only way to come close to the real sales figure, which is a very difficult task. So this is all we can do here on wikipedia, rely on the most reliable sources found. Unfortunately, you may be right, wikipedia and most of its sources may never be accurate.Harout72 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't need to go and translate as you arrogantly suggest, I do speak German, therefore, I'll let you know a little secret that you may never accomplish by literally translating one language into another and in the case of the German language: when they say Alben they don't necessarily mean Albums but rather they talk about his/her sales in whole including albums, singles and compilation releases and here: Alben den Verkaufsrekord, means records in sales. Now, instead of wasting your time trying to get this page accept that Whitney Houston has sold as many records as your unreliable sources indicate above, you should invest the time in locating a reliable source which in the same vein will support your argument here. Find it, leave it here and we can use it, and there shouldn't be any reason not to be able to locate one since you seem quite confident about it. As for the all sources that this page currently is filled with, I every now and then go over them randomly and get rid of those that appear to be unreliable. Having said that, sources like by Amazon.com have no business here which I have not come across, but surely I'll remove it if any of the artists here is supported solely by that site. And lastly, I won't even consider beginning a debate over your racial suggestion as it turns this entire discussion quite futile since nothing of that kind is taking place here. --Harout72 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitney Houston: over 200 million records 

message: Iron Maiden have sold over 85 million albums worldwide, yet someone has VANDALISED this article and removed them. There are already 2 topics on this discussion page asking for them to be included; yet NO-ONE has acted.
I do not have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia's workings or rules to do this myself. There are many responsible users who are capable of including them, but they have ignored requests to make this a reliable article - twice.
Either someone else does it, or I'll ram them in somewhere and risk mucking the whole thing up. To those who are reading, it's your choice; you can either quickly include them yourselves, or have me put it in incorrectly and constantly reverting back to old edits again and again and again on numerous different computers until someone gets the message and sorts this article out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.94.195 (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  INCLUDE IRON MAIDEN 

message: OK, im going to go through the entire article removing all unreliable claims, the article needs a good purge. There are 2 options;- 
*A) Remove the crap source and replace it with a Fact tag.
*B) Completely remove the claim if the source is crap.
So we are going to vote on which is the best method and run with it. I'll keep it open for 2 weeks, if there isnt a clear cut "consensus" the timeframe can be extended. 
**Tupac Shakur is listed twice in this list**  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.127.96.230 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just following the wikipedia guidelines? What you consider to be "crap" could actually be a reliable reference. As was evident in the recent incident. Moreover, it seems you are taking role as an authority figure within this article, which raises other concerns. 220.253.148.207 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No really, i have some experience getting these articles up to a reasonable standard. Because someone decides to actually sort an article out that doesnt mean they OWN the article. We would only allow sources that would be accepted in a Featured List review, which is the ultimate goal of this article. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but if a disputed reference has the support from other editors, it should not be disregarded. It should be taken to the reliable sources board. 220.253.205.216 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that only 1 claim is removed at a time with a clear edit summary to say why. It will be easier for edits to moniter what is being removed. If someone opposes a deletion they can bring it back to the talk page for consensus. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major clean up 

message: *B --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just following the wikipedia guidelines? What you consider to be "crap" could actually be a reliable reference. As was evident in the recent incident. Moreover, it seems you are taking role as an authority figure within this article, which raises other concerns. 220.253.148.207 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No really, i have some experience getting these articles up to a reasonable standard. Because someone decides to actually sort an article out that doesnt mean they OWN the article. We would only allow sources that would be accepted in a Featured List review, which is the ultimate goal of this article. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but if a disputed reference has the support from other editors, it should not be disregarded. It should be taken to the reliable sources board. 220.253.205.216 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that only 1 claim is removed at a time with a clear edit summary to say why. It will be easier for edits to moniter what is being removed. If someone opposes a deletion they can bring it back to the talk page for consensus. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote (or "consensus" if you want to be a wiki bureacrat)

message: Has anyone else noticed that the lines of this section are really fat in comparison to the other benchmarks? Can someone sort that, i dont understand why its happened. Cheers. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that it's done. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  200 million to 500 million records 

message: Metallica has sold 100 million records so change it to 100 million to 199million  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unholybuddha (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet, somewhat contrary to your assertions, all the figures cited in the article are supported by verifiable sources, and you say otherwise. What psychic powers do you have that are denied to the rest of us? --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FALSE INFORMATION 

message: We need to clean up this article with better sources. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: I'm pretty sure British band Coldplay have now sold over 50 million units following the release of their fourth studio album Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends which stormed to number one across the world. The single Viva la Vida also reached number one in UK and USA. Their previous albums were Parachutes in 2000, A Rush of Blood to the Head in 2002 and X&Y in 2005 which all reached number one and collected many awards including Grammys, MTV awards and Brit awards. They sold over 35 million units on their first three albums. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coldplay

message: I believe Record Company based sources such as these ,  should not be removed as most of news magazines/papers do rely on sales figures provided by artists' record companies. --Harout72 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Record Company or Label based sources

message: What does everyone think of maybe a "see also" list on this page.
For example
*Best Selling Album
*Artist Who Hit number one in the Us
Would that be good or unnecessary? I noticed in the past there used to be a list like that. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: Why do you keep adding this source when at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it was thought to be neither reliable nor acceptable. I know that you are aware of that decision because I notified you about it at your talk-page --Harout72 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The liner notes of the album were taken from a media article written in 1977 before the premiere of Marc Bolan's TV show, making it a reliable and independent, third-party source. The fact that it was later re-published by Demon Records (now Demon Music Group) and licensed by Granada Televison and Bolan's record company, Wizard (Bahamas), clearly makes it a more reliable and credible source than a small local newspaper whose claim is only based upon the peak of Bolan and T.Rex's commercial success (a grossly incorrect claim, I might add). Also, nowhere on that noticeboard was it definitively stated that the source I have added is not acceptable. And, Harout, check over your additions in this edit once more, will you? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me ask you something, why are you so attached to only this one source if a band such as T.Rex has really sold 200 million units (at least as you claim so) whereas all other artists who've sold over 100 million records can be found in many reliable sources, in other words, why are you having such difficult time locating a source which we all could agree on. As for what's been said at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it's quite clear that in the case of List of best-selling music artists your suggested source should not be used. By the way, if you're referring to my reversion because it also contains Whitney Houston relying on a source coming out of LastFM, I will remove it as it's not a reliable source, at the time I was only trying to deal with your persistence over that source.--Harout72 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Harout72 again ignores the discussion when someone gives a fair explanation. Moreover, providing more unreliable references to the list. 220.253.145.57 (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll reply to your points tomorrow (I can't right now), but I will take the time to point out that the lead section of this article says, "Sources are record labels, newspaper articles or manual addition of figures from various official sources. This means that these figures should be considered claims, not facts." I have presented a claim which has been published by both a record label and a newspaper. What reasons are there to exclude it from this article? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you should simply relist it at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask the people over there to lay their opinions again by bringing it to their attention that the source has been posted there once before but you disagree or (as you say above) you're not sure of their final decision. You should prove them the reliability of the source and perhaps provide a scan of the article as from what I understand they don't accept it as reliable, otherwise we might start having people here claiming all sorts of figures they've once read somewhere. --Harout72 (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: T.Rex

message: He's currently listed twice on the page, with neither one having a citation. So, which number is the correct one? TheGoogler (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tupac's Real Numbers? 

message: Wrong information: U2 have sold more than 150 million albums accourding to various relible sources, such as CNN, MTV and the band's website itself. To say that they have sold between 75-99 million albums is completely wrong due to the fact that the article that acts as proof of this claim is 10 years old, written during the Pop Era. Please recitfy.
::I updated the sources of U2 with reliable sources.--Harout72 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: U2

message: Queen sold more than 300 million almbums and singles worldwide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.164.209 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen

message: As an artist's total Worldwide sales can never be approximated 100% accurately, and because of this there are often 'edit wars' over which section of this page should be listed in, I think the layout of the list of best-selling fiction authors should be implemented into this list. Not only would this defuse the debates and supposed vandalism which occurs on this list, it would also add a greater validity to the list since multiple sources will be used. Opinions? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the original author of that article, I'm flattered and obviously support this proposal. However, I'm probably not very objective here, so I'll let other people decide... Fram (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these lists should be on the wikipedia to begin with. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to your opinion, but it would be more useful if you gave some arguments. Fram (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" Sure, best of charts, and lists are quite encyclopedic. (notice the sarcasm) This type of article is trivial nonsense, and provides no education value. 220.253.10.5 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides enough education value for news outlets like Fox to report on and compare best-selling artists and albums, or to compile lists like ours for the Sydney Morning Herald. The music industry is big business and in the past, record sales were the most important part of it. The  best-selling music artists are the power players, the ones with the most "votes" from the public and thus the most weight. It is factual information from reliable sources about a topic that often comes in the media. It has historical value, just like a list of most expensive paintings or a list of largest companies has. A random list, or a list of coincidences (list of songs with four or more "A's" in the title) is trivia without educational value. I don't think this list can be compared to such nonsense. Educational value? When you read in the newspaper or in a press release or whatever about "X, one of the best-selling artists of all time with 3 million records sold", then this list helps you put those figures into perspective. It is a baseline to make comparisons against when an article claims e.g. that Alicia Keys is "one of the best-selling artists of all time". The purpose of an encyclopedia is that people can check things they read, and this list, while of course incomplete, serves this purpose and is for the moment the best, most comprehensive list of this kind available on the Internet.Fram (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You just wrote a load of rubbish. 220.253.111.6 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: It is stated here:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_(cantante)#Disco_de_Uranio  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.102.225.176 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, add Raphael as a best selling artist. He sold more than 50 million records 

message: Ok I have done some research and 3 music artists have sold more then 750, they are the beatles with 750, michael jackson with 750, and elivs. This should added to the list. Also change the 500 million or more to 500-750. This is the truth someone please make this correction as soon as possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, there are many more reliable references that state Michael Jackson hasn't sold more than 500 million, including sources from his record company. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  750 million or over 

message: Dolly Parton does not appear on RIAA's list of best selling artists over 10 million total sales in the USA. She has 6 platinum albums only. Her sales numbers are as inflated as her bra size!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.239.112 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RIAA certification and total album sales are two completely different numbers. A record label has to pay to get certification. If they don't pay, albums don't get certified. Just because an artist has a low certification from the RIAA, that doesn't reflect their worldwide sales figures. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is written on their wikipedia page doesn't make it true. Anyone can edit the wikipedia, thus take whatever you read with a grain of salt. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone tell me where Dolly Parton sold over 100 million records

message: I could not find a list of sales by artists' nationality (answering the question "Have the British, per capita, made more records than the French?". I have compiled this list, using the data on this page and List_of_countries_by_population.
The first few lines look like this
 List of best-selling music nationalities
Artists'  Nationality	Records sold  	Population 	Records per capita
United Kingdom       	6,526,000,000 	60,975,000 	107.0
Ireland              	274,000,000   	4,422,100  	62.0
Austria              	382,000,000   	8,340,924  	45.8
U.S.                 	13,196,000,000	304,952,000	43.3
Sweden               	362,000,000   	9,215,021  	39.3
 
Should I add such a table to this page, or create a new page?
SmirkingMan
09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not here, and preferably not on another page either, since this is original research based on limited data. If you can find sources stating the total number of records sold for artists from a country, then you can start on such a page. Basing this solely on the best-selling artists ignores the gigantic number of records sold by successful but not that successful artists. Fram (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you for the advice, taken. That said, such a comparison (after much Googling) doesn't seem to exist, and even if the data I used is patchy, it is the best free data around, and IMHO the results are not entirely void of interest - I personally was surprised to see Ireland and Austria high on the list. Where, would you suggest, should I publish such OR (on my own personal website, obviously, but that's a much harder place to for people to find than the likes of Wickipedia)? Smirkingman (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This will perhaps sound particularly unhelpful, but I have no idea where such info would be most welcome. Such lists are fun and interesting, but I have no idea of a well-known websited dedicated to such stuff (a kind of Wikilists). Perhaps someone else here can help you. Fram (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List record sales by nationality? 

message: i'm not a registered user, so I can't edit this article, but i'd like to point out that these singers (Dalida, aka Iolanda Cristina Gigliotti, and Salvatore Adamo) were italians born.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.47.116 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are to mention the country artists represent, and in the case of Adamo for example, he represents Belgium.--Harout72 (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  so it's a different policy, on the italian (and french) wikipedia page we refer to the "cultural influence" and the nationals markets involved by the sales of discs. Btw, Dalida nevere represented Egypt, she always sang in italian or french..(as Adamo did, always french or italian)..
Another example would be Enrique Iglesias who was born in Spain, who now represents U.S. As for Dalida, you are right, she should not be listed as an artist of Egypt as it appears that she has begun her career in France and that's where she's been living throughout most of her life. However, I prefer leaving her as it's listed currently (Egypt and France) since it already covers France. --Harout72 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalida and Adamo 

message: Where is Tom Jones?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.83.55 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tom Jones]]

message: iron maiden used to be in number 51 or above and suddenly they disappeared from the list!what happened and now in number 51 are the "eagles"????even if someone dislikes iron maiden that doesn't mean he/she can erase them from the list!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krem13 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is iron maiden? 

message: Shouldn`t they be in here? They`ve sold somewhere around the 85 million mark...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaytanic1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Maiden 

message: Whitney Houston has nowhere near sold around 200 million copies and the reference given in this article is an unworthy music site with a lot of false information with biased profiles. She should be under the 100 million and more category where she truly belongs. 
DesmondDH (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitney Houston 

message: On this page the Osmonds are listed as selling over 100 million records and Donny Osmond is listed as selling between 75 - 99 million records. 
The fact is the Osmonds combined with all of Donny Osmond's solo releases, the Donny and Marie releases and the Marie Osmond and Jimmy Osmond solo releases they have sold about 100 million records. Therefore making it untrue to say that the Osmonds alone have sold over 100 million records. 
Donny Osmond is listed for having sold 75-99 million records when in fact his portion of the sales comes to about 40 million. The Osmonds (aka The Osmond Brothers) have probably sold about 60 million albums total when you subtract all the solo albums and Donny and Marie albums sold.
Therefore the listing for them should be Osmonds/Donny/Marie if they are to be included in the 100 million records category and Donny Osmond should be deleted from the 75-99 million. 
Read the following references...
http://www.osmondmania.com/Discography2/protected_Discography.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osmonds have not sold over 100 Million records 

message: The Carpenters should be added to this article as they have sold about 150 million records worldwide. In the U.S. alone they have sold over 30 million albums and 18 million singles bringing their U.S. total to near 50 million.
Here is a reference page for their sales: http://www.richardandkarencarpenter.com/biography.htm
The following page shows Carpenters as selling 24.5 million units in the U.S. http://riaa.org/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt This list only includes their albums and singles which have been certified gold, platinum and multi-platinum. This does not take into account their singles and albums which sold under the certifiable amount which they had several albums which sold between 300,000 to 499,000 copies each (Ticket To Ride", "Passage", "Made In America" and "Lovelines")... the sales of these albums are not counted in the 24.5 million total. In the 70's a single had to sell 2 million to be certified platinum and 1 million to be certified gold, Carpenters had many singles which sold just under the 1 million mark which are not counted in this 24.5 million total. well they had a few singles (such as "Goodbye To Love", "It's Going To Take Sometime", "I Won't Last A Day Without You", "Only Yesterday", "Solitaire", "There's A Kind Of Hush" and "Touch Me When We're Dancing") each of these sold between 500,000 to 900,000 copies, but are not counted in this total of 24.5 million. They also have a good amount of albums which have sold between 150,000 to 299,000 copies each including; Karen Carpenter (solo), "As Time Goes By", "Singles 1969-1981" and "Interpretations"... and several singles between the 300,000 to 499,000 mark which were; "Ticket To Ride", "I Need To Be In Love", "Goofus", "All You Get From Love Is A Love Song", "Calling Occupants...", "Sweet Sweet Smile" and "Those Good Old Dreams"... and still yet a few singles and albums which sold under these.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickHenry (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to include The Carpenters within the section of 50-74 we need a third party reliable source. This here won't do as it's directly coming from the artist's site. The 24 million figure in RIAA's listing should include the number of all albums/singles sold within the States as it's normally the case with all other artists on that list. --Harout72 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I prefer relying on the numbers coming from RIAA's list is because unlike the figures released by artists' record companies which quite often are overinflated for promotional purposes, the RIAA does not advertise such misinterpretation. This is why we are able to come across very few reliable sources who rarely dare to include sales figures within their articles   unless they thoroughly study the total number in sales. Fortunately, record companies present less inflated figures than the ones we see within artists' official sites which somehow makes us to rely on them. I understand The Carpenters have released 11 albums throughout their career the sales of whose have declined towards the end of '70s which makes the 24 million figure presented by RIAA quite logical. I personally, checked to see how they've charted within other large music markets like UK's or Germany's. They've had various hit albums in the UK but have barely appeared on the German album chart, I doubt they've sold as many as 150 million records. I am, however, going to place them within the bracket of 100-199 million using the first two sources that you have provided which seem somewhat reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: As for The Osmonds and Donny Osmond, I am open to replacing the Malaysia based source with something more reliable, personally I highly doubt that 80 percent of the artists here on this page have sold as many records as their refs. may suggest that includes The Osmonds as well as Donny Osmond individually. This source, however, seems like could have been created by anybody, I'm going to remove Donny Osmond from the list for now until someone provides us with a reliable source.--Harout72 (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carpenters have sold near 150 million records 

message: Nirvana used to be on the list, since they have easily sold over 50 million records world wide. Some nirvana hater has obvousily removed them. Nirvana should be added on again. If you need sources, here are some: 
Yahoo
411 Mania
bebo profile
Even in the Nirvana article it says they have sold over 50 million records worldwide. Do the math, at least 26 million copies of Nevermind sold worldwide. Bleach and incesticide at least 1 million records sold EACH in ONLY USA. At least 4 million copies of In Utero in the USA alone. 6 Million copies of MTV Unplugged in USA alone. And 1 million for From The Muddy Banks of a Wishkah, in USA alone. That adds up to at least 39 Million records sold, with most of those albums only including the USA sales. I'm sure theres easily been 11 Million records sold elsewhere in the world. And the source for all these findings? Right on Wikipedia itself. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_discography 
How contradictating. Too add these Album sales up more accuartley, again only including USA sales for all albums expect Nevermind, which includes world sales. The total comes to 41.624 Million albums sold. Then considering that the UK has certificated several albums as Platinum or Gold, these can be added up too, 300,000 Platinum and 100,000 for Gold. This brings the total up to 43.024 Million records sold but this does not include all albums' sales figures in the UK.  
Since Nirvana were included before, they should clearly be included again. There are enough claims for them to be in the list and there are even enough firgures to show they should be included. 
--Kennethswis (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nirvana need to be re-added 

message: Iron Maiden needs to be added back to the list they have sold over 100 million albums, the source is on the Iron Maiden article.
Melkortheevil (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Maiden