Talk:List of best-selling albums/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

RfC on using 100m claimed sales for the Thriller album

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The 'Thriller' album’s available certification has crossed 50M units. According to widely used reliable sources and existing formula for claimed sales calculation, should Thriller claimed sales be raised to 100m as it is mostly reported?TruthGuardians (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Based on "gap". I'm more oriented in gap based on available certs/sales than the method above based on percent per year. I mean, if you increase the figure to 100 million, gap will be extremely outlier than anything seen before (almost 41 million+) by an album pre and post-1980s. Thriller has a bit more than the average of 1980s best-sellers about the gap of "missed" sales but with a close claimed sales (more than 10 million). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Then why does the rules exist. The same logic should also be applied to other albums on this list and not just thriller. For example, Bat out of Hell, how is that gap not too large? If it’s too large, then wouldn’t the entire list at List of best-selling music artists be null and void? It uses same rules. Where is the uniformity and continuity in that? The gap is “large” because the certification is only up-to-date in 3 markets out of 21. Many markets lost certification because there wasn't many certification body established in 82. With all due respect, I oppose you opposing this. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The 1970s album you have mentioned have 17M of gap; which is more than 5M than Thriller as an album of a next decade. But I agree that various albums here have a bit of inflated sales; like many articles in Wikipedia have problems, tagged with templates. However, would be a waste of energy if an individual try to fix every-single case. Thriller its easier since the 100M figure was discussed time ago, and its a mainstream example. I guess, that rule exits as a guideline, and were made in the past decade when knowledge were less than its today. At least to me, gap used in list of best-seller artists are understandable for things that are the whole catalog instead an individual title, than have less chance to sell in all-markets for example or vice-versa. For me, a gap of 20M in the Thriller case, would fit applyting the benefit of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, but we're talking about 40/50M (based both in available sales or certifications) which still outlier. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thriller is indeed an outlier since according to chartmasters.org it sold 47 million more than the second best selling albums of all time. That doesn't mean however that those numbers are not accurate. Am I getting this right, you oppose this because the gap just looks too big compared to other albums? Is that an actual accepted rule on wiki? castorbailey (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

But even though it all, Thriller is egregiously under certified and many of today’s market. Like in Japan it is missing about 3 million certifications, and in Brazil, where thrillers in the book of Guinness records for being the best selling album in the country by selling over three 3 million copies, sales tracking systems have tracked that the actual number today is closer to 5 million. The problem is Sony. Sony isn’t requesting these certifications for whatever reason. The sales are definitely there, even if the certifications aren’t as of yet. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand your points, and I'm always aware of gap in the benefit way and avoiding argumentum ad ignorantiam for individual titles or a whole career sales. Thriller by itself outsold all albums and always will, even with certifications alone as of for today; and I also know it sold a million or more in multiple markets alone that weren't certified; although there are always contaminated reports by record labels for one or more market as happens like with any release.

What I tried to understand you guys, is the jump-gap, which is outlier. Let's forget for a moment the 100 million claim, as multiple sources suggests in the 1990s, that figure were usually set in 40 and-less-than 50 million. Turning the 21st century, the figure was consolidated by 50 million and a bit above (first decade, the 2000s). After Michael Jackson's death (a boost for sales, ofc) the figure was increased to above 60 million-66 million (through the 2010s). And during the 2020s, y'all suggesting that at the present year, sales were increased like perhaps more than any other decade before?. Unless, you believe in the 100 million that for a time has been a circular figure, or woozle effect. Is closer than before, but not now as suggest that timeline. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If you are saying this 100M figure is made by Sony for their promotional purposes, as a person who vouched in favor of including the labels certification in wiki articles, how much do you think record labels inflate for promotional purposes?. For your information, Sony presented a plaque commemorating the sales of 100M copies sales to the estate of MJ a few years ago. It means Sony has to pay the royalties for the sales of 100M copies sales to the estate. As you know Jackson used to get 25% royalties from each album based on retail sales since 1991. If we take that into consideration, Sony will have to pay a huge amount to the Michael Jackson estate. Why would they set themselves up like that for no reason? TheWikiholic (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't in favor to include labels certifications. If so, I would include massively many of them in several albums but is not the case. What I did, like with many MJ's albums or Thriller itselft, are those from third-party sources when database isn't available but I recognize that more than one of them are "contaminated" by record labels report (for example labels via Billboard). In regards GWR with Brazil claim, other sources have put De niña a mujer as the best-selling album (foreing) and Marcelo Rossi is the one whom has the all-time best-selling album in that country for example. And in regards lastest comment by Fancypants786, 70 million has also reliable sources. My suggestion, would be if y'all arguing those missed sales are "present" to fit that gap (listen again: a gap of +40M or 50M depends if we counting certs or claimed sales; and also seeing the timeline of claimed sales), why not work to find sources for them? instead only increase sales when the 70M already has reliable sources and as Harout said, are attached with current sales. So what would be next? in 2022 minimum 100M and later 130 in 2025 and 150 in 2030? and so on. For example, I rarely increased worldwide sales of a title, and instead I do prefer find sales by territory. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Support. Enough reliable sources back the claim castorbailey (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Sources whether reliable or somewhat reliable, all copy the same inflated 100 million from each other without doing their own research. Our total for Thriller coming from the music markets covering 90% of the global music sales is just 57 million. We actually have certified sales coming from key music markets who've have certification systems when Thriller was released including US, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Netherlands, Argentina which together combined cover 60% of the global music sales. We even have pure sales figures for other important music markets including Japan, Brazil, Italy, Australia, Belgium which in their turn cover another 20%. The 70 million is in line with the certified sales and the available pure sales combined.--Harout72 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Except for UK and US (Even though reports reveal that Sony certified Thriller’s EAS sales only, rather than its physical sales since 2016 in the US). How many markets from the 60% of already established markets have recertified Thriller since its initial year? For example, the 2.4M sales from Canada are only as of 1986. The 1.5M certification from Germany was in 1995. The 1m figure from France is also from the early years of Thriller. The 576k from Argentina was as of 1999. And the 1.4M sales from Netherland was as of 2001. The 2.5M sales from Japan is only around the time of the death of Michael Jackson. The 300k from Belgium is only as of 1996. And the 700k from Italy is only until 1995. The 1.15M from Australia is a decade older. The 1.5Million figure from Brazil is only as of 1991. According to Gunnies book of world, record Thriller is the best selling album of all time in Brazil with more than 3.7M sold in 2021. If you compare the sales between 1991 to 2021 in Brazil you can imagine how much the album could have sold in the previously mentioned market as well. One more example, as you know Thriller has been certified in Mexico recently equal to 2.6M units. This might be the sales figure from 1999 onwards. And finally, this 60% and 20% ratio won't work here since we are not calculating the sales that happened in a single year. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The total would still be around 70 million if Thriller was re-certified in all of those markets. Most of its sales had slowed down significantly in the early and mid 1990s. Guinness Book claims many nonsensical idiocies, they're not our authority when it comes to music sales. As it stands right now, there is no way to suggest that Thriller could have sold 100 million units worldwide based on available certified sales and pure sales. If in the future, re-certifications bring the worldwide total to 70+ million, then upgrade could be considered. Harout72 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

But we are not talking about certified sales but claimed sales. Isn't it true that 100 million has been claimed repeatedly and chartmasters.org certainly have the data to back that up. The Guinness Book certainly not idiotic on this particular issue. castorbailey (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

All claimed figures should have enough verifiable certified units when upgrading sales figures from older to new. In this case, verifiable units both certified and pure claims combined stand at 57 million. That's not enough to claim that 100 million is justifiable. Also chartmasters isn't regarded as reliable on wiki. Harout72 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

But the whole issue is that Thriller's certs are way behind where they should be. What exactly is the rule on wiki about the connection between certified sales and claim sales? How much certified sales must there be for 100 million claimed sales? chartmasters may not be accepted on wiki but that's not because it's not accurate it's because certain editors didn't like their results castorbailey (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The general rule on these lists is that a significant growth in certified sales should take place before a higher claimed figures can replace the existing claimed figures. Such growth (see my explanation above) hasn't occurred yet. Chartmasters isn't regarded as reliable because details about as to where their numbers are coming from aren't explained. Harout72 (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Support. Not only have these reliable resources reported the 100 million figure for well over a decade now, it’s only certifications that keeping it from being where it belongs, which is the 100 million club. I’m not convinced that a bunch of editors on Wikipedia know better than other resources that says otherwise. Wikipedia is the only source on the internet with the incorrect number. That’s a problem. Wikipedia is also the only source that has Bat out of Hell with as many claimed sales. That’s also a problem. The problem is not following reliable sources when they are right.Fancypants786 (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancypants786 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Support. Claimed sales are not the same as certified sales and Thriller has been uncertified in numerous countries anyway. Claimed sales of 100 million is supported by numerous reliable sources PinkSlippers (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Support as sales and certifications of 'Thriller' are only up to date in a few countries. The records are clear; Sony has paid Michael Jackson and his Estate accordingly. Do you pay an artist for made up sales? No. Furthermore, it is not fair to dismiss the claimed sales on the basis of outdated sales figures and certifications. 'Thriller' should be updated to a minimum of 100 million because at bare minimum, that’s what it has sold. Besides, that album hasn't stopped selling a good deal yearly (physical + digital). Note: Digital sales include both paid downloads and streaming since a number of streams amount to one unit sold. Israell (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Support CNN, RIAA, RollingStones, Billboard… are reliable sources. I don't believe it's an inflated figure, as in the past, in 2009, MTV claimed that Thriller sales were 110 million. Now, 13 years later, we are talking about a figure of 100 million, and honestly I find these sources such as the RIAA or Billboard more reliable than MTV. 50.2 million is a huge number in terms of certifications, and is more than 50% of 100 million. Facts are facts. On this list there are albums like the Grease OST whose claimed sales are 38 million when it has only 14.4 million certified sales, or Elton John's 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road' album whose claimed sales are 30 million with only 8.5 million certified.

As for Thriller, at the time it was released, there were still no certifications in countries such as Japan, Australia, Brazil or Mexico. In Mexico, for example, the certification system was not established until 1999 and yet Thriller has 2.6 million certified sales there. How many sales are uncertified between 1982 and 1999? And it's just one country, the world is very large. The countries that have certification systems, some of which established them years after the Thriller release, that account for the 50.2 million certifications are only 21. In the world there are 187 more countries where there could be a lot of sales. Thriller is a worldwide known album from one of the most famous artists in history. I believe that the figure of 100 million is by no means inflated, it may even be low, and it's definitely supported by reliable sources. Vacamiera (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes the world is very large with only 20 music markets generating more than 90% of the global sales. The Japanese, Australian, Brazilian, Italian even Belgian, Colombian, Indian pure sales figures are all available for Thriller, and the total is still 57 million from some 30 markets combined. Even if the sales numbers in some of those markets are now higher, the 100 million would still be far out of reach. Harout72 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hold up. The way the sales was calculated here is the exact same way you have calculated the sales for Elvis on the artists page. This is a contradiction of your own rhetoric that I have literally adopted here for Thriller, as it applies. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You've been involved in multiple discussions at Best Selling Artists, by now you should know that the requirements/percentages are designed for initial entry. You know that claimed figures are upgraded only when there is significant growth in certified sales. At the time the 70 million for Thriller was implemented, the certified sales for it were 47.3 million. And that was after consensus was established in a discussion you initiated. So after the certified sales for Thriller grew by another 3 million, you thought it's time to make it jump by another 30 million? Harout72 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair question, Harout. I would like to make clear that when advocating to raise the sales to 70 million, that was the logical next step based on what I knew at that time. However, after coming across reliable source, after reliable source, after reliable source ranging from 2009 to now stating that the album has sold between 100 million to 125 million records, I had to figure out how and why and if it was possible. Unlike any album prior or after Thriller, I did conclude that Thriller is the only album that could have possibly sold that many records. Quite frankly, it’s the only album possible of generating even 70 million in claimed sales. When you really deep dive your lists of certifications and sales, One would learn that there are sales and certifications that have been absent or not updated now for decades in various markets. No, I don’t necessarily believe that 3 million new certifications is equivalent to 30 million more in claimed sales, I believe here in this case that the certifications are playing catch up to the unreported known sales. There is no other global Album that have such outdated sales figures. It probably wouldn’t matter as much for a lesser global megastar, but for artists like Michael Jackson and Madonna physical sales in markets that wouldn’t matter as much to let’s say an Elvis, matters quite a bit for these artists. Let’s take Brazil for example. In Brazil, Madonna has millions of certifications, whereas MJ only has a couple hundred thousand. I thought to myself that just doesn’t seem like it should be the case as he has a music video that was filmed there. After contacting Sony Brazil and the MJ Estate, it was explained to me that some record keeping got screwed up and some records were even lost and are just now being recovered or rediscovered and it was also revealed to me that we can expect to see 10-15 million certifications, about 4-5 million comes from Thriller, which has the Guinness world record for being largest selling album in the country, alone. I wonder why this record existed but not reflected in certifications in the country and that is, as we know it, because a certification system did not exist. Instead, sales were tracked the old fashioned way and it was these records that got “lost.” TruthGuardians (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Whenever the 4-5 million additional certified sales (as you say are expected) are issued, then you can suggest a 75 million to replace the current 70 million. But as it stands now, the 50 million in certified sales and some 5.7 million in additional pure sales from Brazil, Japan, Belgium, India etc. leaves us to believe that the 70 million is the maximum we can work at the moment. Harout72 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

These would be physical sales from the 80’s and 90’s in Brazil, which are calculated differently that anything certified today towards claimed sales. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Harout, Thriller is now eligible for 68M to 75M certification based on its EAS from these 31 markets alone. This will include the 2.6M pure sales from the US (scanned between 2016 to 2021) that went uncertified because Sony mostly certifies digital sales these days. During the 80s we didn’t have this many markets to generate 90% of music sales as today. Even today according to IFPI the body operates in 70 countries say around 10% of markets do not have a certification system. It's strange to see you oppose the 100M claimed sales of Thriller, citing the gap between the claimed sales and available certifications. Because a few months ago, you were defending the 600M figure of Elvis Presley. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

In the 80s, the 90% of the global sales was were being generated by just 10 markets, US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Canada, Australia, Italy, Netherlands, Spain. I'm forgetting how many times I've explained this to you by now, but it must be over a dozen. There is a big difference between Presley's sales and Jackson's sales. There is no way tell how much sales came for Presley from UK, Germany, Japan, and the rest of those 10 without any certification systems in the 50s, 60s. That's not the case with MJ's Thriller. Harout72 (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no intention to assess the claimed sales figures now, but there is just one thing I would like to point out. Of course, the major markets generate the lion's share of global sales. But the percentage/ratio is the result of an average for all artists in the music industry. I mean, Lynyrd Skynyrd do not have the global reach of Michael Jackson or Madonna. However, their 28 million records sold in America do count when determining how much American market represents in comparison to the rest of the world for the music industry global sales. Salvabl (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Support To many reliable sources has consistently claimed Thriller sold over 100 million for years. From Billboard, RIAA, CNN and so on. Alessiorom13 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Support for reasons I have stated when starting this discussion. Just making my position absolutely clear. I’ve tried seeing this from the position of less than 100m and it just doesn’t make sense. I understand the position of 70M, but ultimately I can’t see how such a global mega hit like Thriller, has sold anything less than 100m records. As someone have stated above, Sony has paid Jackson for such sales. While I do agree that record companies certainly used sales figures as a promotional point in past decades, they never went as far as paying their artists for such promotions just to fool the masses. The album was released in 1982, there are some big time markets that have yet to report the album’s physical sales publicly and in other markets may be impossible to do so now. I understand how the MSM can take an inaccurate fact and run with it, but that’s not what has happened here.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. There are plenty of reliable sources denouncing the 100 million figure for Thriller as inflated and was spread by the record company for promotional purpose.[1][2][3]. Guinness World Records put the album at 66 million copies,[4] meaning that the figure currently put in this page (70 million) is already quite overestimated. ChartMasters (whose editor is a huge MJ fan) estiated the album similarly at 65,8 million [5][6]. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Bluesatellite, can you please explain how the 66M figure of Thriller from the Guinness book is reliable and their 3.8M figure for the same album's in Brazil is not reliable?. Refs 2 and 3 cite Newyorker article. And FYI, that new yorker article quotes Guillaume Vieira, who also happens to be the founder of the chart masters website and who you called a die-hard fan of Michael Jackson. And how can we use an article quoting an editor but not his website? Make it make sense. Thanks. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Chartmasters used the same method to calculate the Jackson sales as for any other artists and their method is transparent. I saw no evidence that he would be a die-hard fan of Jackson more than a die-hard fan of any other artist they write about. the 65,800,000 figure is only for the original studio album sales, not including later LPs, streaming and digital downloads. The Guinness World Records gave a certificate for 104 million copies in 2006 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WviiygVo3Oc

Here he is posing with the certificate for 104 million copies. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNamdrIWoAAAES0.jpg:large castorbailey (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Guinness records doesn’t keep up with sales that’s not there prerogative. Let us not pretend that a record they changed almost a decade ago was still apply here in 2022. But you will. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Harhouts comments, I don't understand how the figure could logistically be possible, and per Bluesattelite, there are also sources (high level reliable ones, like The New Yorker) that dispute the figure. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Plenty of high level sources corroborating chartmasters's calculation though. This is an NPR article confirming 104 million https://www.npr.org/2008/02/12/18905337/michael-jacksons-thriller-25-years-later castorbailey (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's unclear to me if NPR is "confirming" or just replicating what Guinness is saying. I know of many times that Guinness has provided bad sales info, so if it's the latter, I wouldn't find that to be compelling. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sergecross73 please have a look at this and see how Harout defended the 600m claimed sales (which is 500m now) figure of Elvis Presley a few months ago. Elvis Presley's total available certification is at 230.6M. Can you explain to me how this 500M figure could logistically be possible? The New Yorker is a reputable source there isn't dispute about that, but the person who the New Yorker quote as a source is the founder of ChartMasters, a website which is found to be no reliable on Wikipedia. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  That conversation is extremely long and about a ton of things, so I don't know how you'd expect someone merely passing through from an RFC notification to wade through all that and glean something from it. That said, if his Elvis claim was as logistically unlikely as this argument, then I probably wouldn't support that either. No one said I'm siding with him on everything. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Support I have read the ‘oppose’ voters’ comments and there is absolutely zero Wikipedia rules that supports them. There are zero sources that support what appears to be their false accusation of being “inflated.” What sources claim that the sales are inflated? There seems to yet again be different rules for calculating Jackson’s sales when it comes to everyone else’s. Absolutely zero uniformity! It’s crystal clear that sales and certifications for Thriller are outdated. It is not just to decide claimed sales on these outdated figures for such a global phenomenon. Factlibrary1 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• The New Yorker is a reliable source, but it was published in 2013. CNN, RIAA or RollingStones are also reliable, and their publication is more recent. Anyway, what seems more relevant to me are sources like Billboard that say Thriller's sales are 100 million. They’re reliable and also recent (2022-05-16 [7]). ChartMasters isn’t regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Should it be taken into account now because it says that Thriller's sales are 65.8 million? Please, let's be serious. There’re people saying that the ChartMasters editor is a Michael Jackson fan (proof??). I don't know anything about that guy and I don't care, either. The figure on that website is even lower than the 70 million listed in this article. That website is just out of date, whether or not its main publisher is a MJ fan. Shouldn't he have inflated the sales numbers more if he is a fan??. I remember reading the 70 million figure for Thriller in 2007, before Michael even died. Later, in 2009 MTV reported sales of 110 million, and according to other sources even 120 million. I don't find the proposed figure inflated at all. How inflated then are the claimed sales of the Elton John's 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road' album? What we have here is a claimed sales figure of 100 million for Thriller supported by definitely reliable sources such as CNN, RIAA, RollingStones and Billboard, some of them very recently published. Vacamiera (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  ChartMasters actually says the total sales of Thriller are 119,783,000, that includes all releases not just the original studio album. The issue here is should we include only the sales of the original studio album or all releases including streaming? castorbailey (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, my error. Of course, streaming should be included. The article already states that in 2016, RIAA included streaming in addition to track sales and album sales based on the concept of album-equivalent unit for certification purposes, and certification therefore no longer reflects shipment alone. Vacamiera (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning support. If the parameter is "claimed sales" then we should basically report "claimed sales". Is there some reason that we can't say "~70-100 million", with a footnote explaining the range of claims? BD2412 T 17:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The 100 million claimed sales actually always has been present in one or other way because is a fact that have reliable sources and it can't be denied (by some point, someone removed that note, against consensus). Despite is or not a woozle effect of 15 years or more. The 100M have had a explainatory note and how other industry sources have disputed those sales (and aren't outdated sources and are also reliable), like MJ's manager did in 2006 boosting without any evidence his sales of his entire catalog generating circular reporting. The 70 million is also a claimed figure with reliable sources, with the difference that is attached to its certifications/available sales. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

One scenario is not like the other. One was a statement being made that didn’t reflect in Jackson’s bank account for overall sales. The other is is a well sourced statement that did reflect in Jackson’s bank account. If we are treating them as equals, then perhaps and RFC should be started on the claimed overall sales from 2006, which provably isn’t that far off the mark to begin with in 2022… but it hasn’t. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't make circles around the same thing. Outside Wikipedia, there is industry sources that have talked about Thrillers of MJ's increased sales by MJ's people. And was a reality, and notorious for the jump. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I strongly object. First, this will open the door for anyone to use the argument that "it's on several sites so it's true" (Aaliyah fans and other R&B artists like Janet Jackson and TLC love to do this) and second because certificates and sales that are cataloged in the article are far from 100 million. Thriller is one of the albums that has more information about its sales on the Internet (on archived pages of websites and articles). Close to Michael Jackson dying he gave an interview in which he said that Thriller sales were at 50 million copies worldwide, to think that after his death, another 50 million were sold is totally unreasonable. Adele sold about 30 million after that date with her album 21 and it was number one on many charts, won many certificates and stayied in the top positions of annual charts for a long time, by no means did Thriller have that feat, that is, there would be no way to reach another 50 million as well and that amount go unnoticed by the IFPI and other organizations.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You mistaking bring up Janet Jackson and perhaps that should also be the next RFC. Janet Jackson is provably the most under certified female artist in history right now. There are reliable sources that accurately report 100 and 180 million in claimed sales for Janet. But that’s a different topic for another time that does not apply to this discussion, but Madonna fans tend to think it does. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You said: "Janet Jackson is provably the most under certified female artist in history right now" but who said that? When you look at her chart the performance you can see that Janet Jackson is more of a local artist. I hope you're one of those fans who come here to increase sales of your favorite artists, instead of wanting to create an article closer to reliable sources. In the case of Thriller 99% of its total sales from the biggest markets are known. I'm afraid of what Wikipedia might become with Rfc like this. Some posts on this page seem to come from the same person who was blocked a few years ago for inflating Janet Jackson's sales here. Anyone with more knowledge could try to find out? I could be wrong.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thriller most certainly sold more than 50 million and 3 years before he died he got the GBWR certificate for 104 million copies so it would be odd for him to say 50 million. Do you have a source for that? Claimed sales are what that phrase means: claimed sales. If this many reliable source supports it and the record is provably undercertified why should certifications be the basis of claimed sales? That makes no sense castorbailey (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment

The Telegraph (2015): Jackson's estate says that "Thriller" has sold more than 100 million copies worldwide, although some experts believe that figure is inflated.[8]

The New Yorker (2013): Did “Thriller” Really Sell a Hundred Million Copies? ... Music-industry sales figures are a complex subject, but this doesn’t excuse the fact that they are often exaggerated for public consumption. The numbers surrounding Jackson have always been particularly outlandish.[9]

The Economic Times (2009): The sales figures are disputed as there is not an official global total. The music label Epic (Sony) has long cited 104 million sold, but a number of experts believe that figure to be exaggerated and put it between 50 and 60 million.[10]

Okay, let's say the album had sold 60 or 70 million by 2009. It would make no sense that it would sell another 30 and 40 million since then, because the album sales is dead in the 21st century. The best-selling album in the past decade was Adele's 21 with 30 million copies sold, and it ended up on the top of the IFPI global year-end album chart twice (2011 and 2011). IFPI has published the annual bestseller list since 2001 and Thriller never appeared on the list, let alone topped it. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

All of these sources quote an expert called Guillaume Vieira, who is the founder of a website blacklisted by the Wikipedia community four years ago. There is no difference between using the above sources and Chartmasters. If we are going to go with these sources, then perhaps you may even support an RFC allowing Chartmasters to be used as a source, correct? If not, then you can’t quote these sources.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"Their Greatest hits 1971-1975" by the Eagles has been certified 24-time platinum since 1993, including nine times platinum in 2018 alone, even though it was last certified in 2006. How was it certified 24 times platinum, which is equal to 24M unit, without mentioned in any reports of Nielsen sound scan and IFPI?

From 2009 to 2022 there's been a certified sales increase of almost 10 million. If, for example, we agree that Thriller had sold up to 70 million copies as of 2009, including missing certifications and sales in other parts of the world without certification systems, and to that amount we add those 10 million and an additional amount to reach all the countries in the world, and we keep in mind that, as TheWikiholic has noted, Thriller is now eligible for 68-75 million certification based on its EAS, then we realize that the figure is not inflated at all. I admit that, due to the unknown data, maybe a figure of 90 million would be better, or perhaps the 110 million stated by MTV years ago. Who knows??.

Anyway, I think we're doing too many mathematical operations trying to prove our opinions. Has that been done for 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road' or other albums with a greater gap? The purpose of claimed sales has nothing to do with what we're doing here. It's just an estimate, complies with percentages rules, is reasonable for this album, and is supported by reliable sources such as CNN, RIAA, RollingStones or Billboard. The last one is very recent, and several years ago there were other sources claiming figures of up to 120 million. But Billboard states Thriller's sales are 100 million, a lower figure. Vacamiera (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thriller is barely eligible for 70 million today with all available certified sales standing at 50 million and with some pure sales, let alone in 2009. Elton John's Goodbye Yellow Brick Road was released in 1973, even Germany and Canada didn't have a certification system then. Only US, UK, France and Finland had certification systems in 1973. So why would anyone with knowledge about that compare that album to MJ's Thriller, which was released in 1982. Even Argentina and New Zealand had certification systems in 1982, not to mention US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Netherlands, Spain all of which covering over 60% of the global sales. Harout72 (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Citing certified sales to counter claimed sales makes no sense unless you can point to a general wiki rule which states that if the gap is bigger then XYZ the claimed sales should not be included castorbailey (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just not true. It’s not the case in the real world TruthGuardians (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

During the release of Thriller there wasn't certification system in comparitivly big markets like Italy, Japan and Brazil. Yet there are sources for Thriller selling millions of copies from these market. But do you have any sources for Goodbye Yellow Brick Road selling like Thriller from these markets?. How does an album not have any certification in markets like France and Finland, where certification system existed already, even before the release of the album, goes on to sell the remaining 21 Million? TheWikiholic (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Although 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road' was released in 1973 and at that time weren't certifications in Germany or Canada, Elton John's main markets are the UK and America. Certification systems already existed in both countries in 1973. Certified sales of that album in the UK are 1.4 million. Do you think there were that many sales in Germany? Even if there were the same sales in Germany and Canada it would still be far from 30 million. In the case of Thriller, although it was released later, there were several countries without certification systems in 1982. And Thriller has a global fame greater than any Elton John album. Vacamiera (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A comparison should only be done with an album that was released sometime around when Thriller was released. That would an album like Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA, released in 1984, which has 22 million certified units. That album has its 30 million sales claim supported by 73% certified sales. Harout72 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

None of the articles you mentioned includes LPs which included Thriller's songs, digital downloads and streaming. The "some experts believe" is hardly a strong argument. castorbailey (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Jackson has actually sold over 100 million records since his death worldwide. 35 million within a year after his death see here: [11]. No one is claiming that out of the 150 million records sold since his death 35 million were for Thriller alone. However, what is being stated is that all of Jackson’s sales and certifications from previous decades have provably not been counted or is decades out of date. It’s not being accurately calculated as it should be, and it goes against the grain of most reliable sources like RIAA, BPI, Billboard, and other music sources. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The "forgotten certificates" from decades past are included in the 50 million total that Michael Jackson said Thriller sold shortly before his death. This album didn't sold 50 million plus since then that's why the 100 million claim is overtly inflated. When Michael Jackosn died, the industry was already in crisis, with the exception of Adele's albums and the Frozen track, the best-selling albums of the year have numbers around 5 million copies. Saying that an album from the 1980s, which doesn't reach the peak of the charts anymore, sold more than 50 million copies from 2009 until now, doesn't make the slightest sense, it's the same as saying that Thriller is selling around 5 million copies each year from 2009 to 2021.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually made a mistake that I corrected above. Jackson has actually sold 150 million records since his death in 2009. He has been certified worldwide for a 110 million of those records. Worldwide Michael Jackson is the largest selling deceased artist and more in physical sales than any other artists, dead or alive. It’s not even close. You’re not following along closely. And that’s okay. What you think is being said, is not what’s being said. You may very well know that, but just pretend not to. It’s okay. Whatever the results of the RFC will be will do the speaking. Then on to the next issue, you brought up some issues I wasn’t thinking about even addressing, now I’m in the midst of researching. You should be more concerned with Eagles greatest hits being provably inflated, not with an album that has provably sold over 100m records. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Markus, These available sales and certifications have been outdated for years. The estimated sales were 40 million as of 1990, per this New York Times article. When we update the figure based on its pace of selling and adding the EAS to it the 70m will be much lower. And to sell records it doesn't need to be on the top of any album chart. If that is the case, how many weeks did Eagle's "Their Greatest hits 1971-1975" top the Billboard 200 chart, and how many weeks did it spend on the album chart in comparison to Thriller? The Eagles were certified nine times platinum in 2018 alone even though it was certified last in 2006. The album has been certified 24-time platinum since 1993. Can you please explain to me how these 24M sales go unnoticed by Nielsen sound scan and IFPI reports?. If the certification was based on the performance of the chart, Thriller would have been certified at least 10 times more compared to "Their Greatest hits 1971-1975". This article along with other lists based on highest-selling albums and artists has a rule that is written in the Notes of this article. That is the listed album released between 1975 and 1990 are required to have their claimed figure supported by 30 to 50% certified units which are 1.33% for each additional year after 1975. By this rule, Thriller only needs to have 40% certification. But it has 50% certification which is 10% more than the minimum requirement to have the 100 claimed sales. If this rule cannot be implemented on one album, this shouldn't be here as a rule for any other albums. If the gap between the claimed sales and available certification will be an issue it should be applicable to all albums and artists like Elvis Presley as well. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop talking about EAS. This list is all about sales a.k.a. the copies sold through recordshop or online store. Streaming (SEAs) or individual songs download (TEAs) do not belong to ALL the numbers of this list. It applies to all albums here, not just Thriller. Bluesatellite (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think talking about EAS can help to show the commercial relevance and evolution the Thriller album's had. Vacamiera (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

'Thriller' has been recertified on the basis of EAS in three markets like many album on this list. Certifying bodies all around the world certify records on the basis of EAS so there is no reason not to calculate the EAS. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The only way to prove that the available certifications and sales are outdated is to find newer claimed sales for each country. For example, if Germany certified Thriller the last time in 1995 for 1.5 million units, then the only way to prove it's sold more there is to find a claimed sales for higher numbers. Just saying it's outdated without any proof is only as good as assuming that it is. The requirements and the percentages are designed to enter the list, any upgrade in claimed figures occurs only when there is significant growth in certified sales. How much exactly the Thriller's certified sales have grown since the figure was upgraded from 66 million to 70 million? Only by 3 million, in fact 2.9 million. And somehow the 100 million seems justifiable today? Harout72 (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Record companies rarely release sales figures after the initial years of the album's release. And if Germany certified Thriller the last time in 1995 for 1.5 million units, it means the album sold 1.5m as of 1995. It's quite understood the album has not stopped selling in Germany since then. For example, Thriller has been certified for 2 m units in Canada in 1984. Within the next two years, the album further sold 400k units. This brought the total of the album to 2.4M. Are you saying Thriller stopped selling in Canada in 1986? Are you saying that happens with all artists or just Michael Jackson? I have emails from both Music Canada and RIAJ (Japan) that say they never got any request from the record labels to certify Thriller in years but have millions of new sales to certify. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I think for now the 70 million is good because everyone who supports the 100 million hasn't provided anything to back up the sales besides multiple sources stating it. If we went by that then lots of albums, songs, and artists would have super inflated claims. When Thriller was increased from 66 million to 70 million it was because the U.S. certification had updated by a couple million copies so if certifications updated again to the point that the 100 million claim would have a smaller gap, then we could update it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. As if there isn’t a rule to the page that backs up the math and 100’s of reliable resources. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact that there're multiple sources stating it is enough and is the usual in these cases. For it to be backed by figures for certain time periods or countries, then we'd have to talk about certified sales. These're different things. That's impossible for estimated sales, as even today there're countries without sales certifications. It's the same for the rest of the albums on this list, they're never backed up by anything more than several sources claiming such a figure. In this case these sources are reliable, and some of them are recently published. It's the usual and it's enough, otherwise Thriller would have to face more requirements than the rest of the albums. Vacamiera (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m not convinced that Wikipedia editors are more in the know than the likes of NYT, RIAA, Billboard, BPI, and others. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

How it can be ignored all the time the fact that reliable sources have disputed the figure of 100 million and above? Is not Wikipedia's users. Plus the fact of the gap matters.... Hypothetically let's agree that every title/catalog of every artist have inflated sales... the difference with MJ's claimed sales is the jump that MJ's people did more than 15 years ago, it was super-notorious. Is not a bias against him. It was clearly promotional tactics, instead by their part. And this stills in recent years, with Billboard (2017) cited the 105 million figure attributing: "Representatives for Sony and Jackson’s estate say that Thriller has sold 105 million copies globally". So it clearly comes from their part. And presumably RIAA's article involving Jackson EState as with other sites. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If Billboard stated the 105 million figure in 2017, and now in a recent publication they state the 100 million figure. Then it's clear that they've chosen the 100 million figure instead of higher figures. Claiming that there's circular reporting is speculation. Wikipedia is not a journal where we publish our own research. Vacamiera (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Is hard to understand as I can see. The same analogy and beyond is applied here with the claimed sales of 100 million; goes beyond that actually. The 100 million figure and above was used before the Michael Jackson death in Wikipedia. That's the original circular reporting. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How long will this RfC stay here?--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

bot/admin normally closes it out after a few weeks or if voting becomes really lopsided. TruthGuardians (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per FanDePopLatino. It's a tricky one because there is a sizable gap between certificate and reported sales. Additionally there is some danger of circular reporting - sometimes if one outlet reports something (often without a source), others will report that same original outlet. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  We can't know if there have been circular reporting on this figure. And we can't know it for the other albums either. The 100 million figure has never been published on Wikipedia, so those sources (CNN, RIAA, RollingStones or Billboard) haven't copied it from here, that's for sure.

  I think the problem of circular reporting is greater when only one source claims something, then it gets published here, and then other sources copy it. In this case, there're several reliable sources stating the same figure. And their publication dates are separated by years. Vacamiera (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking of circular reporting, there are outlets that use, almost word-for-word, Wikipedia’s language on the 70 million claimed sales (after it was updated as such). But we see that on other topics too, not just music and Michael Jackson. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is so important. Although there was a lot more shortly after Thriller was certified 34XPlat last year in US, here are some of the top. [12]

  here

  here

  here

  here TruthGuardians (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

All of these are mid-reliable to poorly quality sources. The 100 million and above exists since the mid-2000s. That's why figures above 100M are so consolidated and are actually the first circular reporting (is like if today we cherry-pick the next and highest available sales in Wikipedia, and that's what happened actually when the figure was accepted here around that time and have been more consolidated after MJ's death). Even, Michael Jackson himself claimed he sold 140 million of Thriller in 2006 and his official website also claimed worldwide record sales of over 1 billion as of 2006 during his career. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that these sources are mid-reliable. And it's these types of sources that usually generate circular reporting. As already stated, years ago there were other figures higher than 100 million: 110, 120 or even 140. Why didn't they generate circular reporting for any of these other figures? I think talking about circular reporting for the 100 million figure is speculation. We've a figure supported by several reliable sources, whose publication dates are separated by years. Would it be better to have a high figure supported by only one source? That's when we'd have to talk about circular reporting, not this time. And the 1 billion claim on Michael Jackson's website was not published in 2006. It can be a bit confusing, because it's part of an MJ timeline from the website, but it reads 'TO DATE, those albums received official sales certifications that far exceeded what Guinness World Records determined BACK IN 2006, and Michael’s total worldwide record sales CURRENTLY exceed 1 billion'. As far as I know, they claimed the 750 million figure in 2006. The 1 billion figure was first claimed by HuffPost, around 2014 or 2015. Vacamiera (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Idem above (21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Since certifications are not automatic and the record labels need to apply for certification by paying fees, record labels may not be interested to certify records after the promotional period of an album. Most importantly, more certifications mean record companies need to pay more money to an artist or an artist’s estate. It also means the record label needs to pay more taxes for more invoices. The 100M figure has been widely used by the media for over a decade now. The gap between the claimed sales and claimed figure is nothing noteworthy, especially when compared to the gap of other albums "like Bat Out of Hell" (22M) and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (20.4m). TheWikiholic (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I believe both "Bat Out of Hell" and "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" are using the lowest available claimed sales. However, the albums on the list from the early 1980s, which are the ones that need to be compared to "Thriller", have their claimed sales supported by more than 60% certified sales, including "Back in Black" (60.2%), "Born in the USA" (73%), "Brothers in Arms" (69%). Even most of the albums from the late 1970s have their claims supported by more than 60% certified sales including "Hotel California" (75%), "Rumours" (73%), "The Wall" (63%). While there is a fee the record companies pay for certifications, they often use the number of Gold and Platinum certs for promotional purposes, so they should be interested in certifying as many albums/singles as possible. Harout72 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Record labels are mostly concentrated in the US, and they usually certify albums during the promotional period for promotional purposes. I have contacted different certifying bodies from around the world. They all point toward the inaction of the record label regarding the lack of certification of MJs Thriller or his overall certification. Most artist gets royalty based on the certification of their records. Berry Gordy, the founder of Motown records, never shared the sales figure until the late 70s. As a result, their artist lost millions of certifications. I think it's one perfect example of why record companies are not interested in certifying records. And using the gold and platinum certification on a few occasions for promotional purposes cannot be ruled as a general case. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Record labels were mostly concentrated in the US in 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, that hasn't been the case for decades. The certifications for Thriller coming from the US and UK are very recent, issued last in 2022. Most of Thriller's certified sales, in fact 77%, are coming from US and UK. Actually, MJ's overall certified sales also are mainly generated by US and UK, together covering 64% of MJ's entire certified sales. So even if some certifying bodies have not issued certs for Thriller including in Japan, Brazil, Italy, we do have their pure sales. Perhaps those figure are a bit higher now, but all in all, the 70 million would still be our ceiling for Thriller. Harout72 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The ideal would be to remove or decrease the position of albums that have a very large gap between claim sales and certifications and not increase Thriller's claim sales since ther are a huge number of sales and charts information until the present about it. This RfC is totally unnecessary. And I know that the intention is to go to other black music artists after that. Increase Janet Jackson's sales from 100 million to 180 million, or give each of her albums "10 or 20 million more to prove she's better than Madonna because someone invented that "she is the artist with the most certificates missing". I once said, it looks like we're arguing with the same person who was banned years ago for inflating Janet Jackson's sales and now created several to vote for this RfC and continue to include those inflated sales to value their artists.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to start thinking about removing all "claim sales" from this list and leaving only sales coming from certifications and until the peak on Billboard.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Couldn’t be possible. It’ll also have to apply to List of best-selling music artists too. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It certainly is not a bad idea.

@TruthGuardians This list and the "List of best-selling music artists" are different. There is no common uniformity between them, as the "List of best-selling music artists" claims Presley's sales are 500M, but this list is not plenty of Presley's albums with claimed sales figures much higher than the certified sales. This list is much more accurate than the other. There is only one Presley's album listed here, with a plausible claimed sales figure. Salvabl (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Markus WikiEditor Would you happen to remember the user name of the editor that was blocked for inflating Janet Jackson's sales figures? I'm prepared to file an SPI as I too suspect that some of the inactive editors involved in favoring the 100 million here are accounts being run by others also involved here. Harout72 (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Harout72: Those two users: User:Isaacsorry and User:Encoreameya, probably the same.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go over their contributions to see if they've been involved in similar discussions. Harout72 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem will came when MJ's record label still applying to US certifications, the market who make the difference now with streaming figures in large quantities. Depends on circumstances, a gap for me of 10-15 million in Thriller is understandable; but also keeping an eye in streaming figures. At some point, there is already retroactively US certified units, but the newer will be more than streaming generated figures than pure units. Even new music hard sell a large amount of pure copies, like Adele was the only one to sold one million copies in 2021 in the US for example. My advise to all of these "MJ's contributors", most of these accounts with support comments semi-active in Wikipedia and mostly involved in MJ's articles, is to try search for territorial sales instead arguing "but there is reliable sources" ignoring all the background and other important facts that also have reliable sources. If the same spirit is follow in Janet Jackson's sales, as it was previously discussed, would be kind of disruptive; also of tagging Madonna's editors to users like you, Markus, which have decreased many Madonna's title sales, or provided many MJ's claimed sales as well; I also have provided MJ's territorial sales, increased his sales when applicable, or decreased Madonna's sales when applicable and the same with many other artists. Perhaps, if disruptive behavior continues, a general sanctions would be an ideal. Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the following statement: “At some point, there is already retroactively US certified units, but the newer will be more than streaming generated figures than pure units.”

This would not apply in other major markets who have yet to certify Thriller and any artists’ work in the past. For example, when Brazil finally certifies Michael Jackson‘s music, it would be for physical sales for the most part from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. So we would have to apply the same mathematics for artists who released work pre-Digital Age. Then from that point forward, take any streaming numbers or any reported physical sales at face value.

Finally, that’s not the definition of disruptive editing. If I decide to start an RFC our conversation on an Janet Jackson‘s page to white totally raise her claimed sales based on reliable sources and other reasons, then it is what it is. That’s how Wikipedia works. You see mistakes, you contest it, and even fix it.TruthGuardians (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

MJ's record label will continue to apply for certifications. Because like the vast majority of artists, most of MJ's certifications are also generated by streaming and digital download. Unlike in the past, if you are an artist with billions of streams on your streaming platforms, it's obvious you are going to be certified. Record labels won't fudge data like they used to do in the past as it is easy to track the streaming figures. Here in this case there are reports that albums like Thriller have not been certified for physical sales since 2016, even though it has scanned more than 2m in the US. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

TruthGuardians (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe we are not obligated to follow this RfC, an RfC has already been made about Thriller sales and the overwhelming conclusion was that the estimated sales of 100 million or more of Thriller were inflated. Therefore, after this RfC that you are doing here, dozens of others may be made, contesting the legitimacy of these 100 million, including one after this one is finished.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully are the same arguments presented with Ms. Jackson with no evidence that support that, for example. Ofc, a consensus can change, but starting again a RfC for this would be disruptive and waste of time as it was previously discussed, just as an overall argument that have reliable sources. As you mentioned again Brazil case with Thriller I completely agree that a gap is understandable about missing sales that we can't see, as happens with any mainstream title, or reputable artist. But once again, the sizable gap of 40/50M is a different thing. Read again your arguments, and y'll see doesn't make too much sense, unless you're a MJ' contributor or "fan" (bias). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to decide the claimed sales based on the gap between the claimed sales and certified sales, even though there are sources that state why records labels don’t release the sales figures or certify records, we will have to remove the requirement notes from this page and the list of best-selling music artists as well. And I will also initiate a new discussion to use lower claimed sales for many artists, including the Beatles and Elvis Presley, as the gap between their claimed sales and certifications is the most egregious of all. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There is evidence. It’s called reliable resources. It’s called avoiding WP:Nor TruthGuardians (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That was an old consensus you are referring to. This is an RFC. An admin will close the RFC. And it’s result will be followed. RFC trumps old consensus. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support The view to oppose does not appear to be supported with any strong sources and seems primarily based on the editors’ own suspicions. One editor posted older sources contesting the album’s claimed sales, but my understanding is it's from an author from a source that is viewed by Wikipedia as having low credibility. It is also my understanding from the conversation here that certifications do not equal sales and that Jackson is not even properly certified in some pretty important markets. Based on the back-and-forth conversation here and the reason this RFC was started, I find myself on the support side because the arguments appear to be more well sourced and factually based.NE0mAn7o! (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Certifications do actually come from strong and reliable sources, check your facts before discrediting those that oppose the implementation of the 100 million. In fact, the only suspicion being made here is by those that assume that Thriller could've sold 100 million, when in actuality there aren't enough verifiable sold units to back that number up. Harout72 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Another user that never appeared in this article, probably from the same fan of the Jackson family, who wants to inflate the family's sales, to prove to the world that these artists are bigger than they really are.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  This comment is unacceptable and violates WP:GOODFAITH as a perfect textbook example of what not to do. Any Wikipedia editor can comment on any talk page on Wikipedia without prior engagement. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it or are here for any other reason. I, for one, appreciate perspectives from fresh eyes. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I discovered the discussion here where I have also participated in other discussion that I have knowledge about. Your response is very attacking towards me in tone. I don’t understand your point or what it is that you are trying to imply, but surely this is not acceptable behaviour? Why is it that I am up against more hostility here than I have been in other discussions? NE0mAn7o! (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  My comment was not made with the intent to discredit anyone. I carefully read through this RFC before making my decision to support. I haven’t claimed that the sources for certification were not reliable. I wrote that the source disputing ‘Thriller’ claimed sales is not reliable. RIAA and Billboard both back the 100 million sales figure. I believe it can’t be classified as “suspicion” when there are reliable sources reporting the figure. This situation is the opposite of WP:NOR. For me personally, the most convincing evidence that the album has sold over 100 million copies are the sources that showed the record label commemorating the event. The label would have to pay for that. It doesn’t make sense to me that they would falsify the sales figure and knowingly generate unnecessary additional costs for themselves. Why would they lie? What could they possibly gain from re-labelling what would have already been the largest selling album at the time as the largest selling album again? NE0mAn7o! (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're claiming that you accept the sources for certifications as reliable, yet you're saying the sources disputing Thriller's 100 million sales aren't reliable. The sources disputing Thriller's 100 million are the available certifications. And the RIAA most definitely does not back up the inflated 100 million with only 34 million in certified units. Harout72 (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  In the sources for available certifications, there are no indications of a dispute regarding the 100 million claimed sales of Thriller. The movement from claimed sales through to certified sales isn’t an automatic step. If it was automatic then there would not be a column to indicate claimed sales.

  Regarding RIAA, they provide the following information: RIAA (2015): THRILLER is the first album in RIAA Gold & Platinum Program history to be certified 30X Multi-Platinum for U.S. sales, continuing The King of Pop’s reign as the biggest selling artist of all time with worldwide sales of over 100 million…

  This information from RIAA is a reliable source from several years ago that references the certifications in the US, and the worldwide claimed sales for the album in the same sentence. Nowhere in this source is there a statement that the sales are inflated. NE0mAn7o! (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  There is a whole lot to know about certifications and the certifying bodies than I think you do. The RIAA is the certifying body in the US, it is not in charge of tracking records sales in other parts of the world, in other words, there is no way for them to know how much Thriller has or hasn't sold anywhere other than in the US. Harout72 (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Fees? Record labels can say whatever they want to say, as everything is marketing. The 100 million is a big deal, a big figure. Michael Jackson also claimed himself his album sold 140 million, back in 2006. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s an inaccurate statement. Michael Jackson never claimed that Thriller sold 140 million copies. He had one public appearance in 2006, one year after his exoneration in court, at the World Music Awards. No such claim was made then at that appearance, in writing, or any other appearance that did not happen that year. But let’s pretend that it did, Jackson cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia in reference to his own sales. However, The over three dozen reliable sources that you can find that cite the hundred million in sales couple be used as a reliable source. Again, I am open to having my mind changed with reliable sources that discuss the possibility of an inflated figure, but it would have to be one that doesn’t include commentary about the matter from an author that is considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia. I’ve yet to see that. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what game we are playing here. Denying some facts but not others (even questionable). Is kind of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. BBC News (a reliable source), quoted MJ's saying (verbatim): Thriller has become the biggest-selling album of all time, with 140 million sold. I love all the fans from the bottom of my heart. I love England. But ok, lets pretend this is unreal, even if BBC News is identified in Wikipedia as a RS.

Also not sure what is still denying that the 100 million figure (or higher claimed sales) has been disputed by third-party sources, and not as some argued are "Wikipedia's users opinion" as a whole. Also are still treated as unreliable sources. It's also denied the fact that the 70 million have reliable sources, but not applied the same analogy to those that have claimed 100 million. Certainly, "supporting votes" have repeatedly denied all these kinds of stuff, and in the journey arguing that "opposed comments haven't provided "substantial" arguments. I was actually the first comment, and first "opposed" after the RfC was opened with the spirit of "without question, and without object it is time to raise Thriller's claimed sales to 100m minimum", but you opposed that I opposed to it. In the end, I know both sides (opposes and supports) comments containing pieces of truth, as well invalidations.

So a gap is ok by many circumstances, but we still "want" to double its sales, set generally at 50 million 15 years ago to now 100 million. Certainly, retroactively and newer certifications came out, and MJ died, and both claimed sales as well certifications raised. But we are still denying the fact of the jump, that not even newer releases didn't reached it, or at least from IFPI reports as with Adele's albums 21 and 25 and Thriller wasn't in their global report of best-sellers since then. Unless, users apply the current certifications of Thriller (50M), including US certs to 15 years ago (ofc, its certs were less those days). With certifications alone, Thriller outsold almost all albums (Eagles albums cited here came to my mind to be as closer in these terms), but let's don't pretend a fallacy of association when came to an unjustified gap. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

For me, the best thing to do is to start decreasing some sales from the table and increasing the percentage needed with certificates for the claimed sales. Putting Thriller at 100 million would destroy an entire job of taking inflated sales out of Wikipedia. There was a time when fans of some artists came here and fought to put up ridiculous sales just to value their artists, dark times, I hope we don't go back to that time. Some sales that should either leave the chart or have their claim sales decreased are Goodby Yellow Brick Road, the Fugees album, Bat Out of Hell, among others.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The required percentages should be synchronized with percentages at the List of best-selling music artists. I also agree that some of the albums should be using lower claimed sales if there are any available. Harout72 (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The time for compromise and talk was before the RFC. Thriller being put at 100 million copies is not going to compromise Wikipedia or the work of any other artist. It certainly didn’t compromise the New York Times, the Washington Post, Huffington Post billboard magazine, RIAA, and other who reported the actual

sales figure of Thriller at 100 million. I absolutely do agree that those albums should be decreased, namely Bat out of Hell. In fact, there’s a bat out of hell discussion above. Hopefully those that are as passionate about keeping Thriller at a deflated 70m may also care to comment in that discussion, and perhaps a consensus could be reached without the need of yet another RFC. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is a lower sales figure for Bat Out of Hell, nothing could be done. I would personally put that album's estimated sales at 30 million, based on its available certified. BTW, I have no interest in deflating or inflating any of the sales figures including Thriller's, I'm only interested in keeping these sales figures as accurate as possible by studying their available certified sales (and pure sales whenever available). I believe all those that oppose Thriller's 100 million also have nothing against Michael Jackson. I don't think anybody opposing the 100 million denies the popularity of Thriller, but the fact remains that the 100 million figure has been blatantly inflated in the past, and now it's being defended by those who are passionate about MJ. Harout72 (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

At some point this could be applied to Thriller with the 100M as long MJ's team still applying for certifications, which could include retroactively sales in some markets and with the US, most-streaming oriented certs: the market which actually make and will make the difference, and at this point we could safely said retroactively certs are no longer the standard for Thriller but are more streaming figures. Nobody know the future, but in the today scenario, large amount of pure/digital copies are no longer common in the US market, instead, seems to be more common in South Korea or perhaps, also China. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It should also works as is a passion to increase Thriller sales (an example that almost everyone know), from the "deflated" 70 million, to provide claimed sales from other countries for this title instead arguing there exists reliable sources (and once again, the same analogy it can be applied to those references supporting the 70M). Also, each individual title listed here or outside, from changing to finding another claimed sales are kind of amount of time, and work which requires WP:BURDEN. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Jackson did not murder those words on stage. This article is also reporting that Jackson was booed. It is know first hand that is not true. It’s complete fiction. Also this is not an original BBC story. This is a copy and paste story from a banned tabloid on Wikipedia. BBC is a reliable source, but all sources need to be vetted. Fans were filming inside the arena. The footage is online. He wasn’t booed offstage. But tabloid media would like history Re-written. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, some titles have a bit of inflated sales. I added Romanza of Italian singer Andrea Bocelli to the club few years ago, but I feel its kind of inflated and I don't have problem with lowered its sales. Many titles, are however kind of be an exhaust work due the persistency of some watchers. Markus and me, tried to downgrade The Score (Fugees album) to 20 million, but an user insisted that the 22M figure has reliable sources. Even, others reported lowered sales such as 16 million for this album. Elton John also came to my mind, mainly the album of 30M. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

When I have time I will work on the lower part of this list by adding all available certified sales. However, the required percentages for certified sales at this list should change to that of at the List of best-selling music artists. And an album like The Score released in 1996 would need to have 16.3 million certified units for 22 million, it doesn't. Would need 14.8 million certified units for 20 million, does it have that much? Nope. In fact, the 22 million isn't even supported by enough certified sales based on this list's requirements which is 12.3 million. Harout72 (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Imagine you try to fix every single case, this is a big challenge as I said, from time to energy, considering when it comes to dealing with other users like of the latter album for example (The Score (Fugees album). We know there are several articles on Wikipedia tagged with templates of problems beyond this scenario, but it is impossible even as much you would like to fix everything when cross to your eyes. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

We only have to engage in discussions during upgrading the claimed sales. The initial entry of albums would be controlled by the requirements listed. Most of the upgrades do not normally require long discussions. Harout72 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

An individual can single-handle manage to update a lot of albums, but some aren't some obvious as they have many watchers or even a single user like the Fugges one. Take also the persistency of some (usually newer registered users), in sales for artists such as Spice Girls. Or even Janet Jackson, as time to time, an user or IP just simply increase her sales, instead providing sales from other countries. These type of editors simply goes to the baseline of "but have reliable sources, so its ok" or "Wikipedia's user can't have more credibility of a reputable source" among other similar statements, ignoring the fact that the other sales have also reliable sources. Further take the example of JJ, where there is no indication of large missing sales, in key countries such as from Europe; not even UK (an English-language market and third largest ww) where OCC usually provides sales data, and also from the summaries of IFPI Platinum Europe Awards. Apart from this list, some titles like She's So Unusual seems to have kind of inflated sales, but there is no (yet) a reference showing lower sales. So we can't do anything. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Ive read this discussion, and Im inclined to support because it is key to understand that artists are paid just like authors. Royalties as per sales. If Sony made up these sales without grossing a penny, they would still need to pay millions of dollars to Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones and others involved with the album. The only possible way is to sign an agreement with everyone involved saying “hey guys, lets invent these sales for marketing purposes, sign these so you agree there are no royalties on them,” but even that is far to conspiratorial for me! Wikipedia is not place for these types of conspiracy theories by editors.MraClean (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The supporting side constantly argues why would record companies inflate these figures if they pay royalties to the artists. You're all condradicting yourselves when you claim Thriller has sold 100 million, but Bat Out of Hell and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road have not sold 44 million and 30 million respectively. If labels can't inflate because they pay royalties to artists, then that theory should apply to all albums. In fact, marketing strategies by labels or parent record companies including inflating sales to make their artists more attractive, is never discussed with artists.--Harout72 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Has there been any talk about royalty payments before when other albums figures have been increased or only now? I think this may be a red herring. You say that those who claim that Thriller has sold 100 million reject that Bat Out of Hell and Goodbye Yellow Brick Road have sold 44 million and 30 million respectively. Aren't you claiming that those albums have sold 44 million and 30 million respectively while rejecting that Thriller has sold 100 million? Isn't that the opposite but with the same amount of contradiction? AnneDant87 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not supporting any of the inflated figures, go over my comments in the thread before making such accusations. In fact, I would support downgrading the claimed sales of many albums if there are lower claimed figures. Harout72 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  That’s rich coming from someone that edits List of Best selling Artists page where the gap between the claimed sales and available certification of The Beatles, Elvis and Led Zeppelin is so egregious it doesn’t even match the page’s definitions. But that’s not a conversation for this page here in this moment. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  If they didn't match the definitions, they wouldn't be on that list. Michael Jackson's gap on there isn't any smaller considering that his career took off when most of the important markets had a certification system already. Harout72 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  I will say, without the intention of generating another discussion, that the claimed sales of The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and Led Zeppelin do match the definitions; but the existence or non-existence of certification systems should not be the determining element (at least not the only one). In the case of The Beatles, the uncaptured sales due to the lack of certification systems in the different markets are higher than those of Presley. This can be clearly noticed when, in periods of time where certification systems are already in place, we see what percentage of Presley's total sales is generated by his sales in the US. It is really high, and certainly much higher than that of such artists as The Beatles, Michael Jackson or Madonna. Thus, we can see that the lack of certification systems in some markets does not affect all the artists and bands on that list in the same way. Salvabl (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  The gap between the claimed sales and certified sales of Beatles is 310.7M (600m-289.3). Elvis Presley is 269.4m (500m-230.6m). Led Zeppelin is 157.8m (300m-142.2m). Pink Floyd is 126.6m (250m-123.4m). These artists' gaps between the claimed and certified sales are much higher than their total available certified sales. How do you reach a conclusion it's not inflated?. There are multiple reliable sources for Michael Jackson has sold millions of records in Japan, Italy, and Brazil even though there was no certification system during the 80s. Do you have similar sources for Elvis missing huge like you claiming from these markets? According to this source , Michael Jackson has sold 7 million copies for three solo LPs. He has also amassed a platinum single three gold singles and a gold album as of 1988. Motown never released their sales until the late 70s and they only became a member of RIAA in the late 70s. This means that Motown artists, including MJ, have lost a few million albums before he moved to epic. It shows how record companies fudge sales data and even if there is a certification system and it's not necessary to have the artist's certifications fully captured. TheWikiholic (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think anybody here is suggesting to inflate the claimed figures of The Beatles, Presley, Zeppelin or Floyd? So if there are no more arguments from the supporting side to back up the outrageously inflated 100 million for Thriller, I suggest we wrap this up. Harout72 (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  The argument has already been made time after time. Let an uninvolved editor decide who's arguments make more sense based on Wikipedia's policy supported by independent reliable sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to lower the claimed sales of the albums as long as they meet the required percentages. If those percentages are only required for the lowest available sales figure, then who decides later if higher figures are inflated or reasonable? That's very subjective. AnneDant87 (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support as te media reports it that way and there are citations for it. If the 100 million claim is innacuarte, then we need to have citations sayingthey are innacurate or proof.Lovewiki106 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support I think some of the opposing votes are non-neutral. You can't pretend to give a greater relevance to old sources that reject higher sales figures for Thriller while trying to remove reliability from sources like Billboard. The 100 million figure has been around for more than a decade and is now supported by multiple reliable sources. Even though there are markets where Thriller sales were not certified for several years, current certified sales are high enough for the 100 million figure. AnneDant87 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to believe, I will put many albums with their highest available sales (or at least higher than their current) based in reliable sources. No matter if the lower are also reliable ones. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If the percentages are met and the sources are reliable, those figures can be included. AnneDant87 (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"Current certified sales are high enough for the 100 million figure". Really, that's what your neutral support is based on? OK then, next supporting vote please, invited here through off-wiki canvassing. Harout72 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it's based on. Meeting the percentages is something objective, it's numerical. However, some people here give authority to Guinness Records when they claim that Thriller sales are 66 million copies, but not when they claim that Thriller is the best-selling album of all time in Brazil with more than 3.8 million copies sold. That's what their neutral opposition is based on? AnneDant87 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Harout, Wikipedia is not a forum. You are using it as such while violating WP:GOODFAITH. Your arguments just aren’t being agreed with, and that’s okay. If this behavior keeps up I will report you to the admin board. Off wiki canvassing is a strong accusation, and before making such accusations, you must provide proof. Disagreeing with your calculations as to where Thriller stands is not evidence of canvassing. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Based on reliable sources it's justified to claimed sale should be raised to 100m.Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources are in conflict, especially demonstrated by the Guinness folks printing up a certificate saying 104 million for Thriller in 2006 while MJ was alive, then rolling that back in 2012 to 65 million[13] and updating the number to 66 million in 2017,[14] where it stands today. The inflated numbers cannot be considered valid. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  Book of Guinness records is not used as a reliable source when discussing sales. But you knew this already. Since 2017 Thriller has provably we had sold 4 million more copies in the world. Where they Guinness record update? That’s right, they don’t keep track of sales

  or certifications. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a funny response from someone who cited Guinness twice right here on this page.[15][16] My point is that sources are in conflict, in this case within the same source. It's a demonstration of how fluid are the numbers, and how higher numbers cannot be trusted. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t using it as a source to support an idea. I was exposing the double standard is all, in both occasions. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Binksternet. If there are the sources to jusify it, the article could carry the controversy about the hype to inflate the sale numbers. If not, just use the conservative figures that most unbiased observers think are accurate. --Wubslin (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.