Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Michael Jackson, summary and further discussion

Re. Request to change the figure for Michael Jackson from 350m to 750m on 11 August 2009.

This edit was reverted here.

This discussion is to establish a consensus as to whether the above edit should be reinstated.

Summary so far

In the interests of the length of the above arguments, I have marked previous discussions as 'archived', and I have attempted to summarize the current position here in a neutral way.

If you feel that this summary is wrong, please change it but please keep it brief. I apologize for any errors in summarizing; I am just trying to facilitate a rational discussion.  Chzz  ►  02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In support of the proposed edit

Rationales

In opposition of the proposed edit

Rationales

  • CNN and Daily Telegraph reliable sources state 350m CNN (Though 'story highlights' says 700m)  · Telegraph ("more than 300m")  · German TV news channel N24 (Germany) reports 400 million [1]
  • Estimates based on adding up various database sources (see above) show that the figure of 750m is unrealistic
  • History of record company exaggeration of sales figures
  • Other figures (Beatles etc.) may need reassessment also
  • Unrealistic recent leap in reported figure from 350m to 700m
  • Sony is a primary source
  • WSJ article claims 750m figure originated from publicist
  • Archive records from reputable sources indicate far fewer sales; BBC reports 165m as of 2003 BBC 2003 - The Age (Australian) reports 350m as of 2006 TheAge
  • Wikipedia records indicate the 750 million figure first crept into the Michael Jackson page on the third of November 2006 Wiki750m, the sources given by the contributor were a Belgian fansite MJMTC, this site was publishing a statement by Michael Jackson's publicist Raymone Bain, she had claimed 750 million sales figures, which the Times of India attributes as her statement Times of India as well as the aforementioned WSJ article. Prior to this, worldwide sales listed for Michael Jackson in the Wikipedia pages have ranged from 150 million to 350 million records, gradually increasing as the pages were updated, all of them almost invariably listing Michael Jackson fansites as the source.
  • In light of all evidence and claims, and given the conflicting reports by reputable news sources, with each other as well as in some cases themselves, the opponents of the 'edit reversion' request that more research be done into news archives prior to 2006 to either validate or invalidate the 750 million claim before a final justification be made as there appears to be sufficient evidence to indicate the 750 million claim came during the World Music Awards, and as being a publicist's statement, was picked up by major news sources, in which case would put the primary source as Raymone Bain and secondary sources as the reputable news outlets.
  • Routine Calculations are not considered synthesis, nor Original Research

Further Discussion and comments

Note Please try to be brief and make policy-based statements, thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


i what to report JFonseka here is saying sony are wrong but the bbc are right beacuse that is what he wants to believe what do you lot think is more reliable and JFonseka you cant say which one is right beaucse you are bias on sales

please change sales back to the orginal which is 750 million for the past 2 years for the time being thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk • contribs)

all the sources that you are tying to defend you arguement with also claimed he has sold 750 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We must assume that this 750 million figure resonates from the original publicist statement, which was obvious hogwash (not long after, it was 1 billion - and she is his publicist). Why must we assume this? Because a reliable source, WJS, states it clearly, a source which has done its research and compiled a list of alterior figures which question this universally used and copied figure. WP:SOURCES states As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is. - I believe the numerous sources, all of which are just your usual news services (and a record label which is a primary source), have never published any fact-checking evidence and have been negatively scrutinized. Using certifications to gain the upper hand on the logic of each figure is more viable, because; 1) Certifications are the source of this information, news services would be using them for research if they are going to publish their own figure. 2) All national music industries used on WP publish sources of the accumulation of figures, sure it may be possible some are missing - however, this opinion is not proven anywhere and is void. That's me wrapped up. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is bullshit (excuse my french). Just because she was the first to reveal the figure(I will state reveal again because she did not originate it she revealed it. Big difference.) does not mean every major news outlet including MTV, Michaeljackson.com, ABC, ABC, CBS, CBS, NY Times, Wash. Post, LA times, Sky, BBC, BBC, USA Today, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, People, Times, Forbes, Reuters, E!, the World Music Awards and even SONY THEMSELVES got the figure from her. To think that they did is absolutely ridiculous and shows an innate bias on your part to even make the huge jump it would take to come to that conclusion. ZK Hal below pretty much destroyed your whole certification arguement below so no need to comment on that. --Mrparissm (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Using various certifications sources and same Harout72's analyse method (with 10% add!) Elvis' 1 billion figure is even more unrealistic then MJ's but his figure is still on this wikipedia article (same goes for The Beatles, ABBA ...). - Elvis' total US sales stands at about 120 million according to RIAA. With Harout72's 10% add = 132 million. - Canadian sales is just 2.9 million according to his certifications and with Harout72's 10% almost 3.2 million. Way bellow MJ's 5.3 million! - German sales stands according to certification way bellow MJ. - In France 2.3 million and with Harout72's 10% add 2.6 million. Way bellow MJ! - In Switzerland, his sales from '89-09 165,000 with the 10%, let's say 200,000. - In The Netherlands, Elvis sales stands according to certification way bellow MJ. - UK's database is currently under construction, however, Elvis' album sales is similiar to MJ, 18 million. etc... Conclusion: According to certifications Elvis' 1 billion figure is inflated much more than MJ's figure but Elvis' 1 billion is still on this wikipedia article. This list represents relations between big artists so it is not fair, it is absurd to put down one artist because his certifications don't show certian figure and at the same time leave another artist's even more questionable figure on the list.--Z.K. HAL (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Z.K. HAL, you are almost there with your certification-calculations I have to give you that, I could definitely use a hand after we're done with all of this. But, there is one small problem I notice with your operation. When it comes to US sales, you should not look at this here as that needs a serious update, see where Michael stands on that page, now look at the figure I am giving you for him all the way at top of this battle field. You see my point? Now, let's look at what you need to calculate for US, and your homework starts here. Now, before you start with this you would need a brand you pen, three blank 2-sided pages and yes one more thing, make sure you're free for the next at least 2.5-3 hours. I'll tell you what, since we all have been here for three days straight all because of me as some on your side like to state. Why don't I save you the time and give you the US figures now, it is, are you ready? 175m plus my 10% which you find very funny. So, Z.K. HAL, we have almost 195 million for Presley coming from US market alone. Now, there is one more dilemma you should have considered when it comes to most music markets in the world, can you guess what it is? You don't have to, I'll tell you this one too. Let's have a look at this page again here, you see the date of the very first certificate? It reads 1958. Now what does that tell us when it comes to music markets like Switzerland for example, the database of which offers certifications issued between '89-'09? It means that 80-85 percent of Michael's certifications are going to show because he began his career in late 70's. You see what I'm driving at? And as for Elvis' certifications, you were able to see only 10% of his certified records, because most of Elvis' records had already been sold way before the Swiss and many other nations in developed world decided to create certification-based markets. Therefore, when it comes to those artists, who have begun their careers before 1980 or 1985, you have to be able to decide what their figure looks like in actuality by using databases offered by US, UK, Canada, Germany(if looking at releases after '75), France (again if looking at released after '75).--Harout72 (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Harout72, as I said before certification databases aren't reliable source to determine how much records someone sold because to get certification you must apply for it and pay for it, it doesnt' matter if you are Elvis or Michael Jackson. Also FYI on almost every single market in the world you can get certification for any album regardless realase date. Please read again my comment (+ my next response) where I was attacked by JFonesca because I wrote that Elvis is undoubtly #1 in the USA regarding total sales. I am aware of all his missing sales in US (we can argue about that total number) where he was and still is the biggest selling solo artist ever. On the other hand you don't know (and as you are obviously Elvis' fan don't believe) that Elvis is behind MJ regarding total real sales (not certification) in almost every country around the world (excluding probably Canada and UK for now). BTW in UK real MJ sale which can be tracked thanks to certification+today's OTC sales+missing clubs sale not counted in certification+history of year-end charts MJ sold 25+ million albums, only in this year MJ sold 1.6m albums in UK (1514676 updated: 02.08.2009)). Start collecting all charts around the world (complete history, year end charts etc.), music magazines, music books, little great infos which you can find thanks to many generous officials via e-mails, discussions etc... I do that for more than 20 years, I spent literally thousands of dollars for that. Your Elvis' US sales number is way more correct than MJ's number because MJ is now way over 100m with his complete albums+singles+digital downloads sale. In Canada according to certification databases Elvis sold 2.9m and MJ 4.5m. That's big bulls..t for both artists. Only for Thriller you don't have sales for the last 25 years. Do you know Thriller chart statistics in Canada after 1984 certification? Do you know Thriller's club's (+small stores) sales which aren't counted in certification number in 1984 + all sale after? Does that prove that he sold xy million records more than you claim in the world? No but take here take there and your analyse with using certification databases as a source is non-reliable just like my analyse with Elvis. Next, in France you have Jackson at 4.5m or 5.8m with 10%add. Only with Thriller+Dangerous can-be-tracked sale Michael Jackson is at 6m etc. etc. etc. You did analyse of Jackson sales around the world using certification databases to prove that he wasn't able to sell 750m records. I did the same to prove that Elvis also didn't sell 1 billion. Actually Elvis' 1 billion is much more ridicolous number even with 300m sold records in US if you want. You can take all Elvis' numbers from certification databases (excluding US) as his sales from mid '70s-2009 and you will see that that number is nowhere near 100m. After 1962 'till death 1977 Elvis had only 8 top 10 singles and only 1 #1 on Billboard. Hmmm, check Elvis' chart history around the world in same period! :) If you do completely not-biased analyse with all can-be-tracked numbers and statistics of Elvis and MJ sale around the world (done few times by music enthusiastic including myself) you will clearly see that MJ total sale with Jackson 5 and The Jacksons is actually bigger than Elvis. As a solo artist Elvis sold more than MJ but in the near future that will probably change thanks to massive MJ's sale now (+This Is It movie) and thanks to his very big unreleased catalog. Here, I am not fighting for MJ's 750m number because I think that he really sold that much as a SOLO artist I fight for that number because I know that that number is EQUALLY (in)correct as Elvis or ABBA or The Beatles' figure. Elvis number is complete fiction (you don't have datails for 1 billion and you will never have it because he didn't sold half of it) and you believe that Elvis' sold 1 billion because Rolling Stone or Time reported that?! Do you really think they did independent analyse of Elvis' sale around the world? Do you know who originated that number and when? Do you know what was the number published before 1 billion? Do you know complete history of that and previous numbers? Contact author of Rolling Stone or Time and ask them from where did they got 1 billion figure! They did completely same thing as CNN or any other news service in Jackson's case! All your claims in this Jackson 350m vs 750m discussion can be used against Elvis, but there is no Elvis discussion.... You can say what you want but I am 100% sure that this Wikipedia article will never change Elvis' ridicolous 1 Billion figure (don't forget Elvis was white). Main source of Jackson 750m number is WORLD MUSIC AWARDS in 2006. I have provided link source for that. After 2006 majority of sources use 750m figure. EOD Important: I didn't provide sources for any my claims so if you don't believe me that's OK. For all data I need hundreds of citation... so if I publish a book :) you will have all sources there. Nevertheless certian numbers can be checked very easy if you are tracking charts' statistic every week like I do. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

if sony records say he has sold 750 million they are right a record company are much more reliable than any sources you have given

http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson

i think people are not except michael jackson has sold this amount yet it states the beatles and elvis have sold 1 billion but the sources give for michael jackson are more reliable it does not make any sense

list of best selling music artists also claims abba yes abba has sold more than michael jackson who will believe that come just accept the sales and stop being bias on one person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.188 (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"350m group" assertions and my replies:
1) CNN and Daily Telegraph reliable sources state 350m CNN (Though 'story highlights' says 700m)  · Telegraph ("more than 300m")  · Austrian news service Kleine Zeitung reports 400m [2]  · German TV news channel N24 (Germany) reports 400 million [3]
Reply: At least 4 CNN sources (see above) + many CNN videos (I can put youtube links!) clearly state 750m figure.
Austrian news service Kleine Zeitung aslo reports 750m [4] ·
German TV news channel N24 (Germany) also reports 750 million [5] ·
Daily Telegraph also reports 750 million [6] · [7] ·
2) History of record company exaggeration of sales figures
Reply: So called exaggeration is only assumption becuase there are no (big) artists including Michael Jackson with complete officially ratified sales with details so you don't have independent non-biased source to confirm your claims about exaggeration.
3) Unrealistic recent leap in reported figure from 350m to 700m
Reply: That leap theoretically may be the result of new, better review of MJ's chart & sale history around the world.
4) WSJ article claims 750m figure originated from publicist
Reply: WSJ article also claims that "Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million." So according to WSJ MJ is way ahead of ABBA, yet in this wikipedia article ABBA = 370m and MJ = 350?! and also WSJ article mentioned Guillaume Vieira and his analyse and according to him MJ sold 205.5m albums and Elvis sold 187m albums (MJ is second only to the Beatles.).
IMO this WSJ article is clear indication that some members of "350 group" are completly biased becuase they didn't mentioned ABBA and Elvis' figures!
5) Sony is a primary source.
Reply: That is maybe truth but you don't have (irrefutable) proof so that is only speculation, assumption. For all artists we are using equally credible sources so why do we question (only) Michael Jackson? We must apply same rules for all artists otherwise we have discrimination! I repeat there are no (big) artists with complete officially ratified sales with details so we don't have independent non-biased source to (irrefutable) confirm any claims about inflated numbers!
Conclusion: Michael Jackson's sales should be at 750+ million Q.E.D. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...This entire section needs to be cleaned up, any NEW contributions should be placed in the relevant places in the rationale, much of this is a repeat of data as well as irrelevant points in regards to The Beatles and Elvis, this discussion was to determine the credibility and verifiability in regards to the sources and merit of the 750 million claim. This section is also meant to be brief in accordance with what Chzzz set out. Given that much of the discussion here is highly irrelevant, I request Chzzz to moderate it on the basis of irrelevancy, repeat data and disorganization. JFonseka (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In 2006. MIchael Jackson was awarded with Diamond Award at World Music Awards. During presentation speech Beyoncé clearly said "... Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records worldwide...". Source: youtube video at 0:43. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...Beyonce is not considered a reputable source of sales figures, please read the rationale and contribute relevant and new information there. The KleineZeitung report should be dismissed as it states 400m sales in an article before his death, and as Z.K.HAL has provided, it reports 750m after his death, no doubt this indicates they have not done any proper investigation and is likely to have taken the figure from another news source. JFonseka (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
But World Music Awards is very reputable source of sales figures and Beyonce's speech was integral part of World Music Awards. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
...As far as has been stated, the WMA awards in regards to Michael Jackson is Best Selling Artist ever with no indication of sales figures (numbers) and the Diamond Award which is for 100m+ albums sold. The WMA in itself has given no such indication of 750m, therefore the number 750m number can only be attributed to a statement of Beyonce, if I'm incorrect (and I maybe), please give the official publication or a link to this publication by the WMA organization itself or the IFPI certifying Michael Jackson of 750m sales. JFonseka (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
On the official World Music Award web site [8]  · there is a special section dedicated to Michael Jackson [9]  · . There in quicktime video: "Michael receives the Diamond Award at the 2006 World Music Awards in London" at 4:08 starts World Music Awards Diamond Award video montage dedicated to Michael Jackson and at 4:15 you can see statement "750 million records sold". BTW just prior to that video montage Michael Jackson has recieved Guinness certificate for Thriller. (If you have problem with apple quicktime plugin the same thing you can see on previous youtube video at 5:38-5:43.) --Z.K. HAL (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ZK HAL that is actually a brilliant point. No way a HUGE awards show like the WORLD MUSIC AWARDS would award this man with best selling artist of all time and have 750 Million records sold quoted there without it being his official number and verified. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

May I make a humble contribution.

1 Surely this is not a Michael Jackson fan site. - - 2. I know a lot of the media (and Michael Jackson fans) have used the 750 Million figure, but they have used it without any checks whatsover, nor the application of commonsence.

- 3.let us be honest here, there is no possibiliy of Michael Jackson having sold 750 million in individual units.

- 4. This is so blatently and patently obvious, that I am wondering why there is a discussuion on the matter.

- 5. Michael Jackson has only released a relatively small number of records and there is nothing beyond that. We know that Thriller has sold about 65 Million and th next best less than half that, and other than the top 5, a few million each. It is not possible to get much beyond the 200 Milliom mark here, add the singles and we get to about 300 Million.

- 6. With the number of MJ release, even if all of them sold as much as Thriller we still won't get to 750million.

- 7. So all MJ fans please take your MJ hats off for the minute, you cannot press this point.

- 8. A better point to press, is why not go to all the sources who have been claiming the 750Million and ask them to justify it.

- 9. As for The Beatles and Elvis, they both have huge catalogues, had huge singles sales when singles sold. Have huge selling album catalogues, which have been renewed from vinal, to tape, to CD, and the quality of evidence is better. It is not just a bland statement like 750M. In Elvis case, other than general evidence, Sony actually did some sort of exersise in 2001. Paulstar —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulStar (talk • contribs) 12:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at this discussion, but I really wish people would understand that one of our roles as editors is to evaluate the credibility of sources. The 750M claim simply isn't credible. Jackson should be placed in the 350M range, with an explanatory section at the end of the article explaining the apparent source of the 750M figure, referenced to the WSJ article as a reliable source of doubt.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
PaulStar we cannot cite "common-sense" unfortunately as this is not considered part of wikipedia policy, as you can imagine everyone would be citing common-sense. We need sources to either validate or invalidate. Therefore we can't use personal opinions of personal reasonings either without some kind of official evidence. Right now, pulling out archive sales data prior to October 2006 would be useful in showing that the 750 million claim was an unreasonable leap as per evidence from official sources shortly prior to the publicists claims of 750 million which was the origin. JFonseka (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

so you are claiming sony records are right about elvis and the beatles but they are wrong about michael jackson the does not seem right

...This is incorrect, I have never cited Sony as a reference for Elvis' sales, and neither have I discussed Elvis' sales here, I have however pointed out it's irrelevant as of this moment. As I recall, Elvis' reference for his sales figure listed on Wikipedia has been the Time Magazine, America.gov and RollingStone. Sony does not manage The Beatles records, that is done by EMI, please research before throwing out accusations along with incorrect "evidence". JFonseka (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WSJ article also claims that Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million." So according to WSJ MJ is way ahead of ABBA, yet in this wikipedia article ABBA = 370m and MJ = 350?! and also WSJ article mentioned Guillaume Vieira and his analyse and according to him MJ sold 205.5m albums and Elvis sold 187m albums (MJ is second only to the Beatles this is double standerds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.65.10 (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...The WSJ article has not claimed that Michael Jackson is "way ahead" of ABBA, it has stated Guillaume Vieira's research as well another researcher's but gives no indication as to whether they accept it or not, after all they state significantly different totals; 131 million and 205 million. Keep in mind, the WSJ article is mainly to demonstrate a reputable source contesting claimed sales figures of Michael Jackson. We cannot use Guillaume Veieira's research as it is not official in anyway. JFonseka (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

and you are saying thriller has sold 65 million but I would like to point out again this Guinness picture (you must enlarge pictureSo according to Guinness Michael Jackson is first entertainer to have officially ratified sales of more than 100 million albums outside the USA. and thriller has sold over 104 million http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg

so if guinness world records say here is the most successful entertainer that means he has out sold elvis and the beatles please show me sources like this for elvis and the beatles and then i will believe you

...That does not indicate sales in anyway, that is success in terms of money made. The same Guinness World Records cites Paul McCartney as the most successfull musician and composer. JFonseka (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

JFonseka please read what the man is saying. In that Guinness of world records photo it shows that Thriller is at 104 Million Copies sold world wide! It doesn't get any more official than that! Why is that relevant you ask? The widely reported figure for Thriller is 50+ Million by News outlets and independent researchers. But this goes to show there is no accurate way to independently get an artists international sales unless you go through the record companies! 50+ to 104 Million is over twice as much! If you want the most accurate numbers you have to go through the record companies. Period. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...Thanks for your statement Mrparrism, I am not questioning The Guinness World Records in anyway, neither have I contradicted sales claims of Thriller, I have not done so as this is not an issue regarding Thriller. I should have elaborated a bit more, the picture of the Guinness World Records posted STATE NOTHING of 750 million records, it states that he is certified as having sold more than 100 million albums worldwide (which no one is disputing, and that he's the most successfull entertainer), I fail to see how these two certifications have made you two realize that this definitely means that he's sold 750 million records, this is a logical inconsistency. Accurate numbers for sales are done through certifying agencies, not record companies, that is the sole reason for certifying agencies to exists, see RIAA, ARIA, etc. Record companies have a history of exaggerating figures though not officially, please do note that OFFICIAL statements in regards to sales figures by record companies are the ones that are certified, the other side is for advertisement and can clearly be seen when Sony mentioned Elvis had sold 1.5 billion records worlwide, how Elvis sold 500 million records in a gap of few years is anyone's guess. Record companies are NOT the source of accurate numbers when executives make statements, they are considered biased, only when they have been certified by INDEPENDENT bodies of a reputable nature are they considered official, official independent bodies for sales certifications vary from country to country and a list of them have been posted by Harout72 earlier in this discussion. As has been stated, with due diligence to the nature of encyclopedic content it makes no sense to accept record company figures, as they are publicists for the entertainer, it has to be independent, I am aware that independent news sources have reported 750m, at the same time other reputable news sources have reported less than this, because of this, a conflict has risen, and there is enough evidence to suggest the 750m figure came in about Oct-Nov 2006, prior to this sales of Michael Jackson that were reported were lower. If you can post reputable news records prior to 2006 that report anything in the 600 - 750m range for Michael Jackson I would be grateful as this would help end the case, sufficient evidence that he's sold 750m prior to the publicist's statement would mean we can finally put him up at 750m in the list, I've so far gotten 2 pieces of evidence, one by the BBC and one by the Age in 2003 and 2006 that put him nowhere close to 750m, which has been posted in the rationale, thanks for your contributions. JFonseka (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

JFonseka that is incorrect. In the "Thugs-n-Harmony" topic above Harout72 specifically states that reports from Music Companies such as Sony Music are acceptable. He also states MTV and others are acceptable. I've provided statements from Sony as well as MTV that show he's sold 750+ Million. So in the end these should be enough. And as for coming up with figures before 2006 doesn't make any sense. It was 2006 when his record company reviewed his sales and came up with the new figure. All the other figures before then were independent and NOT official. There's no way you can count up an artists total sales by going to databases. You seemed to not get what my point was about the Guiness World Records and MJ's Thriller album. If you go to an independent researcher they will say Thriller is at 50+ Million because that is all they can find in the databases. But The Guiness Book of World records has it at 104+ Million. Which is over twice as much as you can find in any database! So obviously databases can not be used as some end all be all when it comes to sales! The record companies are the only ones that can say definitively what an artist has sold. That's pretty much the bottom line man. Not sure why you keep arguing otherwise when the proof is staring you right there in the face. You don't have to agree with the number and that's fine. But going by policy 750+ Million is the most published and documented figure by the majority of reputable sources. And that's what we should go with. --Mrparissm (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

...Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I must ask Harout myself as to why he stated this, because he has opposed this later on. I however have not stood by supporting sources solely from record companies due to their history of exaggeration, see the rationale. As for the Thriller claim, once again this article is not in regards to Thriller, furthermore you are posting conjectures; how do you know independent researchers will claim 50 million because it is all they can find in their databases? Worldwide figures are based on estimates. The record companies cannot be used as the primary source of information in terms of sales, if this is so, then anyone else should not have any problem with me creating a new section in the article putting Elvis at 1.5 billion sales citing Sony/BMG as the source? You do see the problem here. As far as I know, Sony has not made any statement saying they reviewed his sales either in 2006 and claimed it to be 750 million, please show me where you got this information from because from what I have gathered so far, the sales claim came from his publicist. Sony has later on used this sales figure, but there has been no article claiming that they reviewed his worldwide sales figure, if I'm wrong kindly provide this article. Claims that have originated from publicists are not independent, claims that are contradicted by multiple reputable news sources in whatever language has to be looked into. JFonseka (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm replying to this late because I had not seen this as this page is awfully messy and very difficult to read. Mrparissm, yes, you are right, I have stated that publishings by record companies and music related establishments such as MTV and VH1 are acceptable; however, they are not my first choice of references. I have strictly forbidden the use of Labels (such as Arista, RCA etc.). I am also beginning to believe that it's probably best not to allow the use of major record companies either, especially, after what we witnessed with the 750m (this was a very good example, it convinced me that major record companies are capable of saying anything as the Labels are known for). In addition, we are entirely experiencing a different situation here as (I am hoping you have understood this by now) this discussion is not about highly reliable sources, but rather it's about the 750m figure which has popped up to the surface of the earth God knows on what bases (it's certainly not based on the units Jackson has sold). I also briefly discuss (below within the section Simply Now) as to what my intentions are with scrutinizing the sales-figures.--Harout72 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

MJ's 750m figure is from World Music Awards and I have provided source link so why do you ignore that?! Also you don't know irrefutably anything about MJ's total records sale, you only have opinion (IMO completely wrong) about his sale based on certain knowledge. BTW ridiculous Elvis' 1 billion figure is "good example that major record companies are capable of saying anything as the Labels are known for"... --Z.K. HAL (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read above sony records have said michael jackson has sold this amount they know more about him than anyone on wikipedia you are must have something against michael jackson beacause i dont see anyone working this hard even thought all the sources they have give say 350 million they also say here has sold 750 million so if you read all the information about you can see the are more sources that say he has sold 750 million then there are what you are claiming

Do note that we have seen this link posted, I will not repeat the issue with this, it has already been mentioned, so please read. I deleted it because it unnecessary to post something as if it's new evidence when it's already been done, however you may cite it as a reference as part of a bigger point you're trying to make, but unfortunately everyday someone posts it as if it's new evidence and it's an unnecessary waste of space.JFonseka (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

like wikipedia says above verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true

the soruces that guinnes world records report for michael jackson are more reliable than the ones you have given sir paul mccartney beacuse you can clealy see in the pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...Actually The Independent is considered by Wikipedia as exactly the kind of sources that should be cited, definitely not links from random websites which have the possibility of hosting photoshopped images (as you have provided). Though it is correct in that case, since the award is well known for Michael Jackson, do note that the Guiness World Record that Paul McCartney holds can be found in the Guinness World Records book itself (obvious), and your claim that the source is not reliable is untrue. I give up, someone else can spoon-feed this guy.JFonseka (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

michael jackson offical website has said he sold this much

if you read all the information above you can not say which sources are wrong or right just beacuse you believe one of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Without arguing I'd only like to point out other aspects of the WSJ article that were obviously overlooked. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

We are to believe that The Wall Street Journal is a reliable source and because they concluded that the sales of Michael Jackson cannot be proven to be exceeding the 350 million rank, therefore we are to believe other data it is stating in connection with or without connection to Michael Jackson to be true as well. We cannot assume that they write the truth about Jackson's sales and lie about The Beatles or Elvis /tough he's not named, but hinted in the text/.

The WSJ states :

"In an updated analysis, he calculated that the pop star sold 131.5 million albums world-wide, and 65.6 million singles. The total doesn't include digital downloads, which have taken off for Mr. Jackson since his death.

Guillaume Vieira, an engineer in Paris, has compiled his own totals for his Web site, Fan of Music. By his count, Michael Jackson had sold 205.5 million albums before his death, plus many millions more in singles and downloads."

After searching for the engineer's website I've found a site where his numbers where quoted. http://www.hitsville.org/2009/07/12/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-worldwide-record-sales%E2%80%94jackson-the-beatles-pink-floyd-and-more/

Only counting the minimum /never the maximum/ we get 345 million with the maximum numbers 386 million. The WSJ did not say that would be an impossible number nor did they question it's accuracy.

The WSJ also states of Michael Jackson's 750 million album sale number:

"Inflated numbers aren't unique to Mr. Jackson. The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales record also reflects an estimate of the number of songs, not albums, according to trackers of such landmarks. Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million."

Based on this we can surely state that The Beatles did NOT sell 1 billion+ albums nor did Elvis /who wasn't even named in the article/, therefore their sales numbers should be investigated and lowered accordingly, if we have no better or more accurate source, then based on the WSJ article.

Also we can clearly read it in the article that ABBA sales are closer to 100 million.

The WSJ states:

"Michael Jackson had sold 205.5 million albums before his death, plus many millions more in singles and downloads. It is an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million."

Based on this Elvis sold under 345 million unit /or under 205 million?/ Michael Jackson sold somewhere between 205-345/maybe 386/ million and The Beatles sold over 385 possibly 400-500 million+ /as they do not state numbers/.

Here I request the list to be changed according to the article which was deemed "Truthful, believable, reliable" before, I request the FULL change of the list accordingly.

Thank you, and please let me know if the WSJ is not considered to be a reliable, truthful or believable source, and if so then why was the list changed at 1 pint because of it. --Taru29 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I think the 750 million figure should be reinstated into the article. The list is about reported sales, not actual sales, for which no one here knows the true figure. The 750 million figure is widely reported. Is it possible that it is inflated? Yes. Just like the sales figures for Elvis and the Beatles may be. My suggestion is to re-add the 750 million figure, but add a footnote stating that this figure has been disputed in an article, and provide a link to the said article. It is not for anybody here to decide what's the truth and what's a lie. We add information to articles based on verifiability, not, "oh, I think this figure is inflated, so I'll go against what most of the sources say and use this single source of objection". Again, this is for reported sales. The 750 million figure is reported by hundreds of reliable sources. An explanatory footnote detailing the objection to the number of sales will suffice. Pyrrhus16 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are almost as many reported 300-400m figures as 750m. All the major news services, as far as I am concerned, have published two very different figures (750 and 300-350) for Jackson one time or another including CNN, The Daily Telegraph etc.. Now the question here is this, is it possible to to know which figure is the logical one, which figure is not spurious? My answer is, analyze the figures through the help of Certification databases and let's come to a conclusion as to whether or not the published numbers are: not necessarily correct but are they somewhere around the corner where Jackson's true figures should be? We somehow have to come to consensus, we somehow have to be able to decide which figure to go with. Because, I already see that presenting different sources, which in their turn claim two very different numbers, is not going to help us to come to consensus. --Harout72 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Vast majority of new articles use 750 million figure. Regarding certification databases... You can read above Elvis' sale analyse through the help of Certification databases and conclusion is that Elvis' sale around the world is much lower then MJ's. The point is certification databases are not completely reliable sources and you can't apply special rules only for Michael Jackson. Of course you can create NEW List of best-selling music artists with using only certification databases as a source. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read above cnn and the daily telegraph say he has sold 750 million you can not say which one is right

and also i what to point out again if sony say has this much (750 million ) they are more reliable than anyone on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

and is they a way someone could edit List of best-selling music artists it is fully protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.84.181 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please remember this is not a comparative list. Making comparisons with another individual artist is not doing anything for this discussion and is just taking up more and more space. I've read it multiples times - MJ's stand alone figure has nothing to do with Elvis or the Beatles.

Also, please note that these all appear to be single use accounts when summarising this article: Passwordpass, Mrparissm, Z.K. HAL, Johnali123, PsychoMistress (and IPs 92.3.34.136 + 92.3.234.167), PaulStar. Could just be that they all signed up for this discussion - could. Worth noting anyway. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How fucking dare you accuse me of being multiple accounts. I don't know anyone else that posts here nor am I posting under any other account name. Look up the IP addresses if you must. For you to accuse me of something like that is ludicrous, disrespectful and unwarrented. Just because people don't agree with what the fuck you are saying does not make us the same freakin account. Give me a fucking break.
And as for your asinine arguement that these artists should not be compared is utter hogwash. This ia a LIST OF THE BEST SELLING ARTISTS. Of course their sales can be compared that's the whole point of the freakin list! To see how these artits rank amongst each other! If one artist is held to a different standard than all the others it makes the whole list worthless!--Mrparissm (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I never said anyone had multiple accounts, how did you come to this conclusion? I simply stated that it was strange how 5 or 6 of the users that are in this discussion (on both sides) have only ever been used to edit here. And no I'm not going to say sorry for offending your sensitive ass, because it was just a fact.

i do not own this page neither do you Wikipedia is free encyclopedia that anyone can edit do not make out like you own it paulstar, k.i.a.c ,Harout72 and JFonseka

...Please remember, if I have deleted anything by you, it would have been to organize this mess and to stop repeated arguments, a lot of you have not read anything in the earlier discussion, do not cast out accusations. 122.106.154.185 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

just read everything above and you will see michael jackson sold 750 million we can not be bias with one artist and treat the other on List of best-selling music artists any different to michael jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.67.219 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a comparative list. Look at the history of the page, in the time this pointless discussion has been going on, numerous others have received the same treatment - people only see what they want to see. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
k.i.a.c, Your attampt to discredit me (and others) due my (3 years) inactivity on wikipedia is typical flame and actually shows your true charachter and your lack of arguments. Only important thing in this and every civilized discussion is what you are saying - arguments (not your quantity of contibutions or time spent here). --Z.K. HAL (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

how long will it take to unblock this page beacuse Administrators or any one else should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute

I repeat my previous request:

Please try to be brief and make policy-based statements, thanks.  Chzz  ►  22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This list contains only the sales of Michael Jackson as a solo artist. MJ did not sold over 750 million records as a solo artist. That figure of 750 million contains also the sales of The Jackson 5 and The Jacksons (150 million records). The source that claims 350 million is reliable and realistic. A lot of sources claims 750 million, but these figures are highly inflated. In the US, Jackson sold over 61,5 million albums and singles (Certificated by RIAA)(today he sold about 70 million in the US), worldwide about 350 million records. That's very realistic (70 million in the US x 5 ≈ 350).Christo jones (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply wow

I know that MJ's death was very terrible to a lot of people, and now, I really thing that it is completely weird why everyone is going on and on about his sales here. We are just waiting until everybody stops yelling, and shouting, so we can make an agreement on what to do to the article according to policy of course.

(P.S. I don't mean for people to take offense.)--Cubs197 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

this all started beaucse Harout72 decided to edit michael jackson sales even though his record company and his offical said he has sold 750 million read everything above. if you read everything above, harout72 says articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music are acceptable but for michael jackson its different why is this. no one on wikipedia knows more than sony records change it back to how it was before harout72 changed the sales, i just think people are making one rule for michael jackson but not for anyone else on List of best-selling music artists. and people are being bias beacuse if sony records alternatively reported 350 million which is what you want to believe instead of what they actual reported which 750 million you will say its right—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.6.43 (talk • contribs) 14 August, 2009


Note In response to the people that keep asking about how long this will take, why don't we change it back, etc.
a) There is no deadline.
b) It doesn't matter which version is used for now.
c) We will make the edit, if/when we see a consensus - which is based on policy-backed reasoning. No amount of endless rhetoric will affect the decision.
Thank you for your attention.  Chzz  ►  00:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Chzz I'm a bit concerned with your "if/when we see a consensus" statement. I'm just scared this might take months or something. lol Because clearly the other side is not willing to budge no matter what fact/policy based reasoning we put forth. Will you be the one that makes the final decision?

It may be me, or chzz that makes the edit, or perhaps it will be someone else that is following this topic closely like chzz and I are.--Cubs197 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also as for policy based reasoning. 750+ Million is the most published and documented figure by the vast majority of reputable sources. All this independent research that some of the users in here are trying to do is irrelevant and out of the scope of what Wikipedia is about. And even still the tools (databases) they are using for their independent research are no where near 100% accurate in the first place. It seems like a no brainer to revert his number back to the official stance by his record company and what 99% of reputable sources state. That's pretty much my arguement. Thanks. --Mrparissm (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, the most published source is not necessarily the most reliable. Have you not even read what the other argument has put forth? Ignore the certifications being used for one moment - and think about the verifiability of something that has been ousted as bullshit by an equally reliable source. And no, this probably won't get to consensus if people aren't going to backflip on their previous stance - you can stick with one arguement, but it isn't convincing anyone other than the people that have strolled in here with a previous 'why are you pissing on his legacy?' opinion. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I see this discussion continues to be as unproductive as it so far has been; therefore, I suggest that we pick a published figure that falls between the 750m and 300m. I am aiming at 400m figure coming from a non-English language source, it's in the article published by Der Spiegel here, it's in German, highly reliable source, we could perhaps also use this article by N24 (Germany) simultaneously. I know most of you don't want to see me say this over and over, but we have lots of databases, all offering certified records well before 1990 (which is an advantage as Jackson mostly began selling his records worldwide after 1985), the sum of which coming from larger music markets clearly rule the 750m out. And one does not need to come up with an exact figure through certification-databases, instead databases give you the advantage to see how far that particular artist's worldwide sales figure could stretch. I am really trying to keep the figures on this list as logical as humanly possible regardless of how many major news services have been surreptitiously bribed by Sony music to publish the kinds of figures they hoped could help-along with other marketing tools-bring Jackson's fame back to the level where it was before mid 90s.--Harout72 (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

...Harout, I cannot find the 400m figure in the N24 article, it might be because I can't understand the language, also we have to find English sources from prior to 2006 that either validates or invalidates the 750m claim. Which funnily enough, is extremely difficult to track down. I also don't think it's necessary for the bribe claims as it's likely many news sources have simply picked up the figure from one another resulting from the claim by Jackson's publicist. JFonseka (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The figure is immediately below the image, both articles state that Jackson has sold more than 400m, and this is a figure I could swallow, even though, it may be by 100m units exaggerated. Since we are having a difficult time to come to consensus, we need a figure that stands above the 300m and below the 750m. It doesn't necessarily have to be in English in this very case, because I am entirely against using the 750m and the other side is against the 300-350m. As for the result of the 750m, it is very possible that his publicist has sprayed the figure, possibly dictated by his record company.--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 I agree with you we can use Der Spiegel here, it's in German, highly reliable source, we could perhaps also use this article by N24 (Germany) simultaneously for source of 750 million figure. BTW your Der Spiege article is from 11.12.2008 and I have a new one, from 26.06.2009. Also your N24's article is from 05.03.2009, and again I have a new one from 01.07.2009. About certification databases as non-reliable sources read my previous comment(s)... and IMO you are not trying to keep the figures on this list as logical as humanly possible regardless of how many major news services have been surreptitiously bribed by XY, you are ONLY trying to put down Michael Jackson's figure. He is only big artist here who is questioned and checked. As I pointed out before Elvis or ABBA or Mouskouri's figures are equally suspicious, impossible. Double standards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Z.K. HAL, you are missing the entire point of my suggestion. We have CNN too, which has published two very different figures in two different articles, and the dates of both articles are not that far apart, it doesn't mean Jackson has sold 350-400m units within a period of months. It's the same with the German articles. I am simply suggesting to go with a figure that somehow could suite both sides. Because, all the major news services one time or another have published two very different figures. I don't mean to turn this section into a discussion, but since you stated, the biggest artist on the list with the figures I have is The Beatles. The sources for both The Beatles and Elvis need to be changed as they are not at 1 billion boarder but this is a discussion for another time and place. --Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MJ's 350m figure will never suite my side. At the end of year that figure will be history if you count all MJ's "can be tracked" sale (and what about other cannot be tracked sale). This article simultaneosly have much more ridiculous 1 billion figure for Elvis and The Beatles, or inflated to the roof figure for ABBA or Mouskouri... I am 100% sure (we can bet on that) that Elvis' figure will never be changed (permanently) because nobody big enough, respectable in the bussiness and news care about that so we'll never have "good enough" source for wikipedia to confirm his real, very likely sale. Nobody big enough cares about ABBA or Mouskouri's so we don't have good enough source for real sale figures so we'll stick with 370m and 300m probably forever. Wikipedia will never quote any music's enthusiastic over Rolling Stone or Time or XY even if we provide "can't be beat" arguments that Elvis didn't sold 500m records total etc... Anyway, at the end wikipedia's "big boys" will decide what figure will be placed for MJ, it will probably be 350m or something like that, but not 750m, anyway it dosn't matter, list without MJ at 750m will be biased. Only special rules for MJ. Discrimination! My suggestion: Put Michael Jackson (Michael Jackson/The Jackson 5/The Jacksons) and the figure 750m in the table because 750m figure represent MJ's complete career as an artist not his solo career. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the previous discussions above .a "lot" of sources(including the official statement from Sony after Michael Jackson's death ) say Jackson has sold over 700M records...I think Jackson's Numbers Need To Be Reverted To 700+ Million... can somebody please explain to me(shortly) why we should choose 350M instead of 750M ? --nathanid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

Simple. There's no way to take the verifiable sales of his records and get a total that even approaches 750M, and the Wall Street Journal says that figure is bad.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What?! WSJ only questioned MJ's figure but they also questioned other artists' sale (actually complete music industry figures) like The Beatles, ABBA, indirectly Elvis (with mentioning Guillaume Vieira's analyse). BTW there's is also no way to take the verifiable sales of Elvis and The Beatles' records and get a total that even approaches 1 billion. The Beatles are only acts in the world with 200m records sold if you count all certification around the world (to check that look through all certification databases... few links you have on this page). --Z.K. HAL (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the Beatles and Elvis should also have their figures reduced. This isn't a game where we are trying to determine the winner, it's seeking an answer to a particular question: which figure is more credibly sourced, 350M or 750M. At this point, it looks to me like the 350M figure is more credible, but is also most likely inflated. If to come to a consensus we have to agree to reduce all three acts to a more credible figure at the same time, I'm open to that.—Kww(talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What is for you "more credibly" sourced? I can't quote all information I have (impossible to quote literally thousands of informations (inc. magazines, books) I collected through the years) but anyway with recent sale MJ sold more than 350m records (that include albums+singles+digital sale and that number is even more greater if you count 2CD albums as 2 records like RIAA do) and at the end of year that number will probably be close or over 400m with TII movie hype and (very likely) soundtrack live album and I am talking about MJ's solo career and only his can-be-tracked sale. Of course all my information have zero credibility without citation (his recent sale numbers can be quoted but I don't think that will change anything now so...) but fact is that many people here take 350m figure because they ONLY have opinion (!?) that MJ didn't sold XY records! In near future with his recent sale add, (majority of) newspapers will (probably) use new 800m figure (I already have one book with that LOL) and then what? Will you add in near future new can-be-tracked at least 35-50m to 350m or what? How will you update Wikipedia article because what is credibitliy of source which don't have his recent sale and I am sure that nobody will wrote new articles in press with most likely new 400m figure so you will be without source. I put my suggestion about 750m in my previous comment (see above). Your idea to reduce "Big 3" at the same time is great and that will be perfect thing to do but like I said previously you won't find any credible source to back up any real, most likely Elvis or The Beatles figure because unfortunately 1 billion is accepted like axiom. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Many names on the list are supported by poorly studied record-sales, all of which are sourced with highly reliable sources. And that was my idea not to allow anything less reliable on the list than CNN, Fox News, BBC etc.. I, later, realized that simply having highly reliable sources attached to the figures was not enough as many figures for many artists needed to be scrutinized. Michael Jackson, by the way, Z.K. HAL, was not the first one that I decided to look at, you probably should go over the edit-history to see that some artists were simply removed from the list rather than being degraded due to not having enough, or in some cases, a single evidence of sales within databases around the world that could suggest their blatant sales figures. So, I'd be careful with the choice of the vocabulary if I were you as nothing of that kind (what you're suggesting above) is taking place here. By the way, Z.K. HAL, ordering certifications is not expensive as in the states it costs a member company only $350 for each certification. However, it will cost the record companies a lot more if they don't obtain them because they constantly use the number of Gold/Platinum awards as a marketing tool. --Harout72 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't have complete officially ratified sales with details for any artists. Not even close! FACT! WSJ article is about that. So actually you take artist's figure and use opinion and certain knowledge - that number is suspicious and then you find "reliable" article to back-up your presumption and the funny part is that every single "reliable" article has number based on "big nothing"! Like parrots they repeat certain numbers... they have read it somewhere or got it from labels or they have heard it on television or they simply quote each other without reference... You really think that author of any article did some kind of analyse? About certification, The Beatles are most certified in the world with 200m+ so... About discrimination... if you change MJ's number and leave Elvis or The Beatles at 1 billion that is discrimination because that is unfair treatment of one person, you are (in)directly favoring one person or side over another! Forget "some-artists"... MJ is at the moment everywhere and you just decided to put his number down! Absolutely all your objections against MJ could be applied against Elvis etc. so why not all "big" artists together on discussion page and then change all or nothing? I didn't see any of you complaining before that Elvis figure must be changed and on the other hand I was questioned yesterday by certain editor because I am new or inactive in wikipedia becuase I am fighting against double standards!? --Z.K. HAL (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

From numerous postings on this discussion page, I'm beginning to get the feeling that those editors who oppose the 350m are not somehow against the 350m but rather they are bothered by the fact that there is a huge gap between the current figures of The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson which the list currently presents. Well, this is what I can say. From my studies as far as The Beatles and Presley go (although, I would very much like to wait for the UK's database to be back online as it's a very important market for determination of the artists' sales), The Beatles without the slightest doubt in my mind are the best-selling act/artists on the list with 211m records in US (plus 10%=230-235m); however, their worldwide sales figures per other databases, I'd say, should stagger between 500-550m maximum, whereas Presley's figure (a very difficult one to study, by the way, as his career goes all the way back to mid 50s and most databases in the world offer certifications beginning from '80 or '85) should look like 400-450m with his 175m US sales (plus 10%=190-195m). Jackson would take the third place according to my studies while ABBA; unfortunately, would have to be moved out of the 300-499m section altogether as their certifications could only support a figure of some 100-150 million. If my interpretation is something the opposing side could work with, now all we have to do is to locate highly reliable sources to back-up the given figures.--Harout72 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for all those opposed to the recent changes in the article, but I would not approve of the new figures for presley and the beatles. I have read about the certifications in the United States for the two artists. The beatles have 170 million in sales and presley just under 120 million in the United States. I understand it's difficult to assess figures from so long ago, so altered figures and even the above figures have the potential for controversy. Also, I feel it's a bit unfair to add 10% to the two artists sales and not to anyone else's sales. Based on what I've seen, Presley has, rounded up, 120 mln. in sales in the US. From many reports, I have read Presley's US sales are about 60% of his global sales - that would put his total worldwide sales at close to 200 million (side note, I also have read 1/3 of his sales are from the UK ~65mln.). The Beatles, I feel, would have a similar ratio or maybe less as they are a British band, so their sales, in my opinion with a certification analysis, would be around 280-320 mln. That might put Michael Jackson at the top with possibly 350 mln. I'm not so sure with ABBA, but I have heard reports that in the 70s they had even surpassed the Beatles in sales figures for bands. But I'm sure if I posted my version of the numbers, even with highly reliable sources, I would be looking for a lot of trouble. It's better, in my opinion, to keep the recording label/recording company numbers as different people are going to have different interpretations.Vpuliva (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protection

We ought to be able to have a rational discussion now: the rampant socking through new accounts and IP addresses will be ineffective because the talk-page is semi-protected. I'll offer proxy service for anons: if you have a comment that you would like to include, please place it at User talk:Kww/Michael Jackson dispute. I'll screen it, and, if I decide that you aren't just a sock, I'll insert your comment. Anyone using Carphone need not apply.

On the main topic of the dispute, I think people need to recognize that there are valid, policy-based arguments on both sides. In general, we reflect sources, and don't do a lot of editorializing. There's a very natural and reasonable tendency to go with the 750M figure just because there's such a huge number of sources supporting it.

Just because we normally reflect sources doesn't prevent us from evaluating them, though. I personally find the argument that the 750M figure is false and inflated fairly persuasive, and we have reliable sources backing that claim up. We could quite reasonably reject it, go with 350M, and still fall well within Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

I think we need to recognize that this dispute will never die. Whichever figure we choose, we have to acknowledge the other and explain why it isn't used. My suggestion is that we punt, and include neither/both. Place Jackson in a separate table entry between the Elvis/Beatles section and the ABBA section, with a range of sales of 350M to 750M. Point to a discussion later in the article, and in that discussion we provide a discussion of the 350M figure, the 750M figure, and the dispute between them. We can discuss the WSJ refutation at that point. Phrased properly, we can get out of this without pissing reasonable people off.—Kww(talk) 12:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

i really think that any issue concerning this man should be handled with care,he way arguably the most famous man on earth when he was alive and certainly has a very,very large following so please treat this topic with care so as not to offend anyone ,. now looking at the fact about his sales. Records include the following: singles, albums, ringtones, etc.now stating this makes it highly probable that he sold over 750 million records if you include his days before becoming a solo artist.the time with the Jackson 5.but when you say albums that's a different thing,that's when its more probable to say he sold over 350 million albums.and i really think that if you want to change this figures you should simultaneously do it together with the other ridiculous figures stated for Elvis , the beattles and abba.you have to bring all these figures down at the same time all else this will be termed as discrimination against Jackson.especially around this time when there is a high interest in all things Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonash7 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection has now been removed; hopefully the sock issue is resolved. Back to the brief, policy-based discussions?  Chzz  ►  01:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

how do i make a complaint about Momusufan to stop deleting my comments i am only trying to make a point could someone please report this is the 10th time today he has delete them i dont understand why thank you If you are not vandalizing, and he is removing your comments in bad faith, you can leave anotice here. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

these are the only point i am trying to state

i dont think we should place Jackson in a separate table entry between the Elvis/Beatles section and the ABBA section, with a range of sales of 350M to 750M beacause if your read everting above it tell you elvis and beatles have not sold this much

even the wall street jounal article you keep bringing up says they have not sold this much

we should either change elvis or the beatles sales or change michael jackson sales back to how they orginaly were

i can see the sales will never change beacuse people are treating them differntly to michael jackson

And we can not use Recording Industry Association of America beacuse the only state usa sells

i am just saying we should never treat people on list of best selling music artist differently even if you not a fan of them or you are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.126.203 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Momusufan has deleting my comments 10 time today i dont understand why thank you

he is also say i am using someone else ip address how can he say this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.162.220 (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


The IP is a sockpuppet to a blocked user who isn't allowed to be editing here FYI. Momo san Gespräch 15:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

like i said who are you to detele my comments i might give up editing the talk page beacuse every here is saying not to trust me i you read above i am making very good point please just listen to what i have to say

You are disrupting consensus and that is what got you blocked in the first place, everyone else agrees with me here. Momo san Gespräch 15:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The above IP address has indeed been blocked for block evasion, see block log.  Chzz  ►  09:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion

I was asked to look over this discussion a couple days ago. Just got around to it this morning. Here's my opinion:

Tl;dr, but if there is evidence that the figure is wrong, and there is a reliable source for the more accurate figure, then we should be using the latter. Whether or not we have the same evidence and reliable source for every other artist or group with inflated sales is irrelevant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We don't keep one article inaccurate because it is "unfair" to fix it while leaving others inaccurate. That's silly. The argument supporting 750 million relies much on WP:V. In that there is a reliable source that did the research for this specific issue, determining that 750 million is not accurate, application of this policy shifts to those wanting to remove it. What needs to be done is the whole situation explained in the article. We shouldn't just be choosing between which number to use. Rather, we should be taking the information available to us and presenting it in the article. As this is a list, make it a footnote; but in his bio, it deserves a paragraph. State the dispute in the article with less verbosity than enjoyed on this page. Lara 13:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I see one reliable source with scientific independent research which support 350m figure as an accurate?! Also Can I see complete explenation for method used in that research. How did they count for example 2CDs issues, how did they tracked - Motown, Epic sales, complete singles sales, retail sale prior Soundscan in US for example, clubs sale which weren't counted by RIAA until mid '90s, and same goes for the rest of the world? Did they count digital sale? Video? What about unprecedent MJ's sale after his death etc. etc. FYI, they don't have any reliable source based on reliable research for 350m figure! Fact! About fairness... I am talking about discrimination, not (only) fairness and I already explained that. I agree with you, if there is more accurate source for the more accurate figure, then of course we should be using the latter but the problem is that 350m group don't have that more accurate source. Some people only think that one source is more accurate and that is based on what? Some research based on certification databases? Give me a break! I stated before that The Beatles are only act with 200m+ certified sales so what kind of proof is that...? Also every list/table must use same methodology for ALL table's subjects/objects or analyse is completely invalid, pointless etc... Don't you agree? Special rules, methodology, judgement for MJ, hmmmm?!?! I repeat, countless reliable sources use new 750m figure for MJ and in the future that number will probably grow due new sale. For every single 350m source link on this page I have provided new(er) one from the same source but with 750m figure. 750m figure is from World Music Awards 2006 (I have provided source) and they are the closest thing to International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. After 2006 that is a new updated figure used for MJ. After I read your comment I can say... if people - mediators will determine or be part of any final decision here without properly reading and evaluating all real arguments in this discussion then I am wasting my time! Regards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? It's not helping. You want the 350m figure to be sourced with proven (scientific?) research, but hypocritically continue to demand that we use a figure which is questioned by reliable sources, not just you, me or any other editor here. And lets put this in bold, hopefully it gets your attention this time:
This is not a comparitive list - no comparing, no comparison, no relevancy with other artists. Stop wasting time making stupid claims. Discrimination? bah. I have already explained in this discussion; there have been multiple other artists removed for the same reasons in the time this has been ongoing - what's the difference? The difference is you didn't come here flailing 12 accounts around bitching and moaning about them. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot... Questioned by reliable sources? For you it is reliable only because it is good for you and I see only 1 source and that source questioned complete music industry. I still didn't saw any kind of research to support that 350m figure. Why did your group choosed 350m, why not 200m or 250m or 375m or 400m or 450m... How do you count MJ's recent sale? Tell me worldwide sale of Billie Jean single? Without knowing all details of MJ's work how can you claim that some figure is wrong? 350m, 400m or 750m it doesn't matter! You use approximation based on what? Cetification? Also lets put this in bold, hopefully it gets your attention this time: Every list/table must use same methodology for ALL table's subjects/objects! Multiple artists removed? What's difference? For MJ's 750m figure there is probably more reliable sources on net then for all other artists combined (check google, yahoo...). You can hide behind phrase "This is not a comparative list - no comparing, no comparison, no relevancy with other artists" but that is complete [BEEP]. Be serious, at the end of day this whole 350m vs 750m is not about MJ's sale. On web you can find dozens endless (forum's) discussions about "Elvis vs. MJ vs...". It's all about who sold more records and people come here to see that so that is the reason why we must use same methodology for all artist and of course for you that is not important because "this is not comparative list". Why are you here? What is your goal? To put MJ down and to attack other editors because they don't agree with you!? BTW recent big traffic on this page is only due MJ's death. Fact! June 2009 article traffic statistics, July 2009 article traffic statistics... --Z.K. HAL (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
When/if you resolve this 350m vs. 750m., very soon you will have same discussion with same (new) name because from the start method(ology) is wrong, non-transparent. You are dealing with 2 much aproximations and 2 much subjectivity. All figures & sources are based on argument: "it's in newspapers and I (don't) believe in this figure because my analyse has showed that this figure is (im)possible and I know blabla... ". You can make any figure work as a "correct" or "more accurate" figure and that's wrong! Anyway I am out... Have fun! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Keeping in line with Lara has said, it's also best to read what the original research policy mentions, I believe some people here have been citing "synthesis" incorrectly, it appears Synthesis is the use of statements from different credible sources to further a position. The Original Research policy also indicates:
"This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived."
This is exactly what Harout has been doing, it's also in line with Lara has said, if there is a reliable source for the correct figure, we must use the latter. It's not only supported by the CNN article and other articles, but it falls in line with Harouts calculations which fall into line with basic arithmetic and routine calculations which editors can agree the application correctly reflects the information published by the sources from which it is derived. Unfortunately the other articles citing 750m cannot be verified by the source of the sales figures. JFonseka (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Harrana (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)In 2001, Michael Jackson received a World Music Award for having sold 750 millions of albums. He later released Invincible and some compilation CDs. Tommy Mottola, former Sony's president, said that Jackson had sold 1 billion of albums.He received a world music award, in 1996, for best selling artist in history! So...why are you claiming that he only sold 350 millions of albums??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs)

In this section, I include my research on The Beatles

I was asked by an editor not long after this nasty dispute began, why don't I also do the same research on The Beatles and Elvis Presley? Well, I thought I'd approach each one of the artists on the list one at a time. Since I have stated number of times within the current dispute that the 1 billion for The Beatles and Elvis Presley is as outrageous as the 750m for Jackson, maybe this is the best time to post the numbers for The Beatles and shortly I'll do the same with Presley.

So here we go,

  • US sales '58-'09: 211million + the 10% (to include records which have not reached the certification level)=230-235 million. Note that when calculating the US sales, one should not look at this page here as it does not include singles and videos, not to mention that album sales is not always updated. We have to use the searchable database here to count every record individually. I've done the same with Michael Jackson above.
  • UK sales, unfortunately, I cannot post it at this time as their searchable database is still under construction (My guess; however, would be at least 50m albums, singles, videos combined).
  • German sales '75-'09: 7.2 million + 10%=8 million. Note that those sold records, released before 1975 will not show in the German database as their certification-based-market was established in '75.
  • French sales '73-'09: 3 million + 10% = 3.3 million. Note that those sold records, released before 1973 are not going to show unless some earlier records have had late releases in France.
  • Canadian sales '75-'09: 12.5 million + 10% = 13.8 million. Note that most of the sold records, released in Canadian market before '80 are not going to show as they began issuing certifications in 1975.
  • Swiss sales '89-'09: 350,000 + 10% =380,000. Note that Swiss database is from '89-'09; therefore, most of The Beatles' records sold before '89 in the Swiss market are not going to show.
  • Brazilian sales '90-'09: 500,000 + 10% = 550,000. Note that all sold records, released before 1990 are not going to show as they started issuing certifications in '90.
  • Argentinean sales '80-'09: 1 million + 10% =1.1 million. Note most sold records, released prior to '80 will not show.
  • Austrian sales '90-'09: 300,000 +10% =330,000. Note that most sold records, released before 1990 are not going to show as in Austria they created their certification-based-market in '90.
  • Swedish sales '87-'08: 300,000 + 10% = 330,000. Note that most sold records, released prior to '87 will not show as Swedes created their certification-based-market in '87.
  • Japanese sales: While they currently don't offer a searchable database, I believe The Beatles' total there could come close to 10-15 million.


This analysis was not done to determine the total record-sales for The Beatles, but rather it was done to get an idea as to how far their worldwide total might stretch. I believe, it's clear that their total couldn't come close to 1 billion even if we somehow had access to those records that searchable databases don't contain. However, it is far larger figure than that of for Jackson considering also the fact that most of Jackson's records are visible in databases as he began his career over 15 years later than The Beatles, which is an advantage when conducting an analysis of this kind based on databases.

Note that certification volumes both on Platinum and Gold have constantly been shrinking after 2000 due to music piracy in 90% of the markets. In some countries, Certification volumes between 2000 and 2009 have shrunk by 40-60%. --Harout72 (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, nicely done but regarding supposedly MJ's advantege over The Beatles because his career has begun later so he has advantage when conducting an analysis of this kind based on databases that is actually misleading, seems logical but it's not true in US & Canada... so I have few little corrections and observation: MJ's solo career started 1971 with single "Got to Be There" so it is not 15 years... Also unfortunately MJ's Motown career isn't certified because of Motown/RIAA dispute. Take for example MJ's 1972 Motown single Ben, MJ's first #1 in US and that song was number #20 on Billboard Top 100 year-end chart 1972. Same year MJ had another big hit #2 in US, Rockin' Robin and that song was #41 on Billboard Top 100 year-end chart 1972. Same year Elvis' single Burning Love #2 in US was #48 at the Billboard Top 100 year-end chart 1972. That Elvis' song was certified Gold in 1972. MJ lost 3 million in RIAA certification only for this 2 songs. Also only for example 5 singles from Bad were #1 at Billboard in 1987/1988 + 1 at #7 (Smooth Criminal) and 1 at #11 but due MJ's record company certification inactivity (!) only 1 song got certification and that was first single "I Just Can't Stop Loving You" certified 09/28/1987, way before other singles releases. If you analyse Billboard charts in 1987 and 1988 and year-end charts you will clearly see that all 7 singles from Bad were sold in more then 500,000 copies (actually 4 singles from Bad album were 1 million sellers) so again he lost 4.5m in RIAA certification. I have real sale numbers from various sources (including Billboard) but at the moment that is not important because I can prove all claims regarding sales using only Billboard weekly charts (+ year end charts) and detailed comparations with other RIAA certified songs in same period from other artists. Same goes for singles from Thriller etc... The point is if you analyse all Elvis and The Beatles US singles & albums there are actually way more properly certified then MJ's, he can get around 30m album+single (only physical) RIAA certification at the moment. Also in MJ's RIAA certification there are only 3 gold certified digital singles but his actual solo digital single sale is around 14 million according to Nielsen Soundscan (soon 5 million-seller singles etc.). --Z.K. HAL (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert when it comes to Jackson's detailed discography, I see, however, Jackson's first certificate in US was issued in 1979, meaning that's when his success began to pick up. And that's not very early, because many developed countries began to establish certification-based-markets in either '75 or '80. So they captured and certified most of Jackson's records. As for The Beatles, their success began to pick up in 1964; therefore, a lot of their records were not captured and certified by many markets at least for another 10 years. And that's what I meant with the 15 years of difference. I have a feeling that you compare artists to each other a lot, Michael Jackson to Elvis, or Jackson to The Beatles. I don't think you should do that as every artist experiences a different success during their career. --Harout72 (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't fill this section with Michael Jackson's discussions. Post your comments here if they are related to The Beatles. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added you numbers together for The Beatles since for most it's not obvious how much that would be if they are only stated by country and not in total. The total number would be 328million /and I've added your 50million estimated sales fro UK and 15million for japan and calculated with the 235 million in the beginning of your post rather then the lower number/. That's a bit lower than what I've estimated previously but I must admit it's probably more easy to back up this number with certificates then mine.

My question would be: If we conclude that these numbers /this one and the one you'll get for Elvis/ is more accurate and can be backed up by certificates, will that make the 1 billion+ get lowered down to our final numbers? --Taru29 (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand your question, but I guess you're asking, if we should keep the section of "500 million to 1 billion records" after we analyze Elvis' figures based on certificates also. I already have gone over Presley's certificates and I will post them shortly, perhaps today, and his numbers don't suggest anything close to 1 billion either. To answer your question in short, no we should place both The Beatles and Presley in a new section "400-600 million" as Elvis' total should be somewhere around 400-450 maximum and the figure for The Beatles might stretch to 500-600 million. Of course we'd need reliable sources to back up these figures. --Harout72 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Please let's keep this section strictly for The Beatles' figures. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was asking if the number will get lowered. But why 400-600 million? Since that can not be backed up it sounds fishy to state it /you can still put an asterisk at the correct, backed up number and add that we estimate it to be higher 'cause some data is missing since the certification system started later then their carer/, we should stick to accurate data that can be backed up /I personally feel like that the data that has no "signs" left regardless of reason is at the moment not important. If someone comes and says that The Beatles sold 200 million record during the time they could not track it and the person won't be able to prove it BUT we won't be able to tell if it's true or not either therefore it's like a rumor, we should make note of it that they sold more but not count what's not certified at all./ --Taru29 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We cannot support any figures at wikipedia using a research of this kind, that would be WP:OR. I do this analysis to have an idea as to how exaggerated the figures claimed by reliable sources are. Why 400-600 million? I've faced and analyzed enough of these figures already to know what bracket artists' total approximately is going to fall in. Of course, every single figure my analysis suggests must be supported by a reliable source. --Harout72 (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The 400-600 million is not supported by ANY source. If we are to go with randomly picked numbers we should do so with all artist / I know you hate this thought but that's how it is/. Otherwise I personally feel these numbers are more accurate and reliable than CNN who will report anything based on how they feel at the moment /today this number tomorrow the double/. --Taru29 (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't spend hours and hours of my time to call it randomly picked numbers. I am quite certain of the figures I suggest. Second of all, I would first like to be done with these huge figures before I get to others. Although, I have already gone over some other artists before all this began. As for the sources, there are articles by reliable sources which state 600m for The Beatles, this here for example. Of course, I'd prefer to see a slightly different wording as they've used "600 million albums" instead of using "600 million records". But, I suppose it's something we can work with, I've noticed that a lot of publishers don't see the importance of separating the word "album" from the word "records".--Harout72 (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit that until that article was found the 600 million was rather farfetched since your calculation came out as 328 million /meaning when you first said 600 million is ok you randomly gave more than 200 million albums to your number, or atleast you could have backed up your statement there with the article/.

With the existence of that article we might conclude that they sold close to 600 million, I suppose they did a bit of research only maybe with more data then us. I'm hoping to see something similar for Elvis too.--Taru29 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the 600m is a bit exaggerated for what I see for The Beatles, however, it's a number I prefer having over the 1 billion. And the figure I came up with based on the certifications (you probably don't read what I write as closely as you should), but I did mention that the total figure based on this analysis is not supposed to be taken as their actual worldwide total. In other words, I never suggested 328m nor 600m. Instead I said their total figure should stagger somewhere between 400-600million.--Harout72 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My research on Elvis Presley

I must admit that it's very difficult to do a research on artists who have begun their careers as early as Presley; especially, when analysis greatly relies on figures out of certification databases. However, it's an advantage to have the US database, the certification-dates on which go all the way back to 1958, and that's not too long after Presley began his career. Note that US music market (size wise)represents 30-35% of all music markets in the world. Although, it's not always that 30-35% of the sales of US artists could be determined by only RIAA's database, it seems in this case that Presley could be one of those whose total might largely (40-50 %) depend on US sales.

So let's look at Presley's figures:

  • US sales '58-'09: 174 million + the 10% (to include records which haven't reached a certification level)=190-195 million. Note that when calculating the US sales, one shouldn't look at this page here as it does not include singles and videos, not to mention that album sales is not always updated. We have to use the searchable database here to count every record individually. I've done the same with Michael Jackson and The Beatles above.
  • UK sales, unfortunately, UK's searchable database is not available at the moment due to their system-update (My guess; however, would be at least 10-15m albums, singles, videos combined).
  • German sales '75-'09: 1.5 million + 10%=1.7 million. Note that records released and sold prior to 1975 will not show in the German database as their certification-based-market was established in '75.
  • French sales '73-'09: 2.4 million + 10% = 2.7 million. Note that those sold records, released before 1973 are not going to show as the French began issuing certifications in 1973.
  • Canadian sales '75-'09: 2.7 million + 10% = 3 million. Note that most of the records released and sold in Canadian market before '75 are not going to show as they began issuing certifications in 1975.
  • Australian sales '97-'09: 1.1m + 10% =1.2m. Note that Australian database is from '97-'09; therefore, most of Presley's records sold before '97 in the Australian market are not going to show.
  • Finnish sales '71-'09: 173,500 + 10% = 190,000. Note that all records released and sold before 1971 are not going to show as Fins started issuing certifications in 1971.
  • Austrian sales '90-'09: 150,000 +10% =170,000. Note that most of those records released and sold before 1990 are not going to show as in Austria they created their certification-based-market in '90.
  • The Dutch sales '78-'09: 440,000 + 10% = 500,000. Note that most of those records released and sold before 1978 are not going to show as in The Netherlands the certification-based-market was established in '78.
  • Brazilian sales '90-'09: 125,000 + 10% = 140,000. Note that all records released and sold prior 1990 are not going to show as they started issuing certifications in '90.
  • Japanese sales: They currently don't offer a searchable database; however, my guess would be that Presley's total there could come close to 5 million.

Let me point out again that this research was not conducted to determine the total sales figure for Elvis Presley, instead I did it in order for us to see how far it might stretch. I have to say that I don't see how his total could reach the 1 billion mark (as it's stated in number of reliable sources) even if we had access to all his records through various databases. While we have a lot of his records missing in the databases, I have to say that his total-figure (which could stagger somewhere between 350-450 million) is far greater than the figure we have for Jackson considering that most of Jackson's records are present within databases.

Also note that certification-volumes both on Platinum and Gold have constantly been declining in 90-95% of the markets after the music piracy began in 2000. In fact, in some countries, Certification volumes have shrunk by 40-60% between 2000-2009.--Harout72 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The calculation total is : 230 million. I'd like to point out that to the best of my knowledge Germany ought to have 2 databases till late 80' since they WERE 2 countries /apparently east Germany possibly barely bought ANY albums at all, not only Elvis, since they were poor and were on the Russian territory where there was an import lock at the time while west Germany was richer and had access to the US and UK goods/.

BTW. are you sure there's possibility that more than 100 million record are unregistered? Since you say he could have sold about 350-450 million that means about half of his sales would be missing /it's kinda hard for me to believe that almost 120-220 million record just vanish like that especially when Elvis was said to have had only 40% of his sales from international market/. When did RIAA start recording sales? --Taru29 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read above, I do state that the analysis hasn't been done to determine a worldwide sales figure for Presley. In other words, one doesn't have to add these figures up and come up with a number thinking that that figure represents the total. There are more databases available which have figures for Presley, nothing major but they're there. I didn't post them because it's not necessary. What's necessary; however, is the fact that this research proves that Presley's actual total is far from 1 billion; despite the strong possibility that there are more than 100 million units that we cannot see within databases as Elvis is a very early beginner as far as establishments of databases go.--Harout72 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
10-15 million doesn't sound like a reasonable figure for Elvis Presley sales in the UK since the 1950's, the UK MIX forum reports about 44 million sales for Elvis Presley in the UK, of course the data must have been taken when the BPI (British Phonograpic Industry) database was active, so we'll have to wait and see until the database comes back up. I am no expert in chart analysis, but there should be more countries taken into account for MJ, The Beatles and Elvis. Finland should be one of the lower-key countries. MJ, The Beatles and Elvis have had tremendous sales in Brazil, and these should be looked into. Since 2003, their bar-codes for CD's have also been changed to reflect the album sales. India and China should also be looked into, these are countries that one cannot ignore sales for, even a small percentage of the population buying albums would bring in a significant sales figure for Elvis, The Beatles and MJ. I am JFonseka by the way, I'm having problems signing in. JFonseka (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So Harout72 you are saying that "eventhough we cannot get together not even half of the reported sale we still should place him there merely because we have reason to believable that he sold more than 300million record in countries where they had no access to anything from the US or UK and obviously in China too which sadly never been well recorded and is always neglected and, yes this means that 300 million record were sold but disappeared.". Now that sounds like something to follow, something we SHOULD put on the beginning on the list so people will know that we randomly throw millions of record sale there.

JFonseka I must say I agree, big part of record sales disappear in China since their database is bad and nobody will have a look at them /though with that population I guess a 100 million records could just disappear for anybody, and MJ was HUGE in China as well in Japan, dunno about Elvis though but I know The Beatles were big in Japan/. --Taru29 (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing for sure is more research needs to be done into the questionable countries such as China, Japan, India and Brazil. As far as I recall Elvis and The Beatles have had a massive following in Japan in the past few decades when western music started to first make inroads in the 50's. Personal opinion and news articles are of course completely different from sales data. I am not sure about MJ's following in Japan, however I would not be surprised if the sales are huge. Any kind of information regarding this would be great. JFonseka (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've foud this article about MJ's death in connection with Japan. It doesn't really state anything overly accurate /though it does drop the 4million number but it sounds too low for all album sale but maybe not/. It also stated that MJ was the Top selling foreign male artist in Japan /so no non-Japanese artist sold more than him there/.
[10] I wonder when will they have a searchable database. --Taru29 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I had to correct the year (above) the Fins first launched their certification-based-market, it's '71 not '90. I had it correct in the second sentence. The reason, I included the Finnish database is because they've captured and certified all those Presley's materials that were released there either in '71 or a bit earlier than that. I believe, it's a good database to look into which simultaneously helps you get an idea about how other European countries with similar market-size (which don't offer databases stretching back to 'early 70s) might have reacted to Presley's records.

Personally, I agree that heavily populated regions should be taken into account; however, we also must consider one thing, those developing counties such as India, China and Brazil have almost had a non-existent economy; especially, during when Presley was active. So even if we somehow had access to their reported figures, I am sure they should be tenuous numbers. I would definitely want to consider those heavily populated countries while analyzing figures of a present-time artists. Japan is a key market in Asia Pacific; therefore, I always have an approximate figure for that part of the world. As for Presley's sales in UK, maybe it's more than what I foresee and maybe it's not, and let's not believe any reports as I think we've had enough experience to know that published figures are often tossed about without any research being done.

No doubt about the fact that we have lots of Presley's records missing when looking into the databases of developed countries (since he's an early starter), but if you look closely at the numbers of The Beatles (who have launched their career not long after Elvis), you will notice how large The Beatles' figures are, which come out of those the same markets that I have for Elvis (including Germany, Canada, France,) not to mention that US figure for The Beatles is larger by 35-40m. Note when I give an approximate total for artists, I do exaggerate the figures (which I conclude based on these databases) quite lot in order not to miss sales of any records, which don't appear in databases. In fact, I might be exaggerating the figures some 10-15% more than I'm supposed to.--Harout72 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So your estimates ought to be rather accurate. I still believe though that quite big part of Europe had no Elvis and Beatles sale /merely because I live here my self and know how thing were back then/. I suppose the only markets that might actually hide sales would be France, West Germany /now Germany, East Germany was poor and had an import lock so I suppose they might at outmost hide about 10,000 LPs and even that would be an overestimate/ Italy, Spain and some countries in the north part /like Finland, Sweden, I have doubts about The Netherlands but I never saw anyform of data from them/. The smaller one probably do not change lot on the sales the bigger one might, and apparently I do not expect lot to be missing from Russia as I'm sure they only recently started to allow in anything from outside. And I always felt sorry for the poor China database since there are so many people there, and I have doubts about India's sales since they in big percentage poor. Japan might be interesting but we have to note that their population is still under 200 million so anything over 20 million might be fishy unless backed up by certifications. --Taru29 (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Harout, someone gave me some details on the Japanese charts for Elvis from the years 1970-2004. It's a chart system called Oricon. Presley has sold 1.3 mill albums from 1970 - 2004 (sales counted only while the album charts) and gave me the list of albums and the weeks on the charts, it sounds about right that he sold 5 million in total, however if someone can read japanese and could see what they can find for MJ and The Beatles as well it would be great: Oricon, as I can't understand anything there. JFonseka (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And Taru29, Russian sales would not be astronomical I'm sure, however record sales have occurred there as I recall seeing Russian pressings of vinyls for The Beatles and Elvis in the 80's, getting chart data would be another issue, and I don't think it's possible as I remember that Russia does not have an official chart system even now. JFonseka (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've come across that name Oricon before, I believe we actually have Japanese artists supported by Oricon on List of best-selling music artists, is it like the US Billboard's equivalent in Japan. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the Japanese language at all. I mean, I tried to translate a page or two using the Google-language but I got completely lost. I'll probably be better off with my approximate sales for Japanese market :).--Harout72 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

JFonseka I've thought too that Russia possibly have small or none relevant sales /since their stay in surrounding countries created the import lock it's logical they had it too, in the 80' though they could have been more open still regardless how big they were they probably have small sales/.

Also Oricon seems to have a database from 1999-2009 /I've checked it, I've learned Japanese for 4 years and I can find my way around the site, but I might have problem with translating sentences because of the amount of kanjis they use, otherwise it seems more like somekind of "girls" site with health and fitness section as well as medicine/. Do you have a link for the 1970- part from that site? Because I don't see it, but I'm trying to make a search for The Beatles and MJ from 99-2009 time frame /pretty hard, I've found how many albums were released by them, and recent sales for MJ from last month and an option to search the sales database from 99-09 with the accuracy of daily sales! I'm having difficulties finding yearly statistic, I've found this years list but it has no numbers since this year is still on, this gonna take a while/. --Taru29 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Taru, that's great news, let us know what you find with some links hopefully, even partial data from periods would be good in helping getting a picture so that everyone can see and agree on an upper limit to these sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFonseka (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to know how anybody made a research in this site. I've found quite a lot of stuff but nothing useable at the moment, I'm still looking though /especially since I had the recent sale for this week but they removed it, but only from the western music and the Indie music part which seem illogical, I expect it to be placed back though, maybe they are doing an update there/. Found a database which will list the sales from selected year's, selected month's selected week. It will be a bit long to list their sales like this.....--Taru29 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


ORICON SALES DATA - JAPANESE ALBUM SALES DATA 1997-2009.08.23 FOR ELVIS, THE BEATLES, MICHAEL JACKSON

Ugh...My eyes hurt but I'm finished with Oricon. How the numbers came out: I've checked the release dates of their albums and search for the surrounding weeks to see if they had sales or not, since I can only search the charts based on dates so this was my only option /release date gathered from Oricon database, meaning these were the Japanese release dates for their CDs/. The results:

For MJ 9 albums were found in the chart /4 compilations (The Essential MJ, KOP, Number 1s, Best of Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5), 1 re-release (Thriller 25), 4 albums(Dangerous, Bad, Invincible,Off the Wall)/, total sales found: 668.983 << updated after recheck

without the compilation album that includes the Jackson 5: 664.983 << updated after recheck

For The Beatles 1 album was found on the list / title: "1"/, total sales found: 1.788.760 << updated after recheck

For Elvis 1 album(his?) found /Title: Junichiro Koizumi: My Favorite Elvis songs, Artist named as Elvis Presley/, total sales found: 83.900

I also would like to note how I believe this chart is missing quite a lot of sales /there a weeks without any data about album sales/ and is anything but accurate /it just feels odd how The Beatles sold almost 2 million within 5 month and then failed to sell enough to get on the list even though they had new albums released after that too/.

Also please note that I couldn't find not even release data about singles, and of course I've searched based on international dates but found NO singles for either of them. --Taru29 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is definitely an incomplete list, that Junichiro guy was the last president of Japan and he's an Elvis fans, so that album is fairly recent. However those are the results from the current charting. So that must be the total sales as present in the chart. So since MJ's death 9 albums are currently in the charts with cumulative sales of nearly 500,000. The Beatles '1' is still in the charts and got nearly 2 million sales. One of Elvis' albums are in the charts currently and it's got about 84,000 sales, as far as I know that's how the Oricon chart system works, correct me if I'm wrong. Taru29, thanks so much for that information, is there a link to this, I'd just like to archive this kind of information for the future, and with the link hopefully I can keep track of it weekly.
So there was no database of any sort with historical records, that's a bummer, doesn't look like we'll be able to salvage anything officially, the only thing to go by are archives, if they do actually exist in the public domain. Hopefully if we keep this present data, it will be useful in the future. JFonseka (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes nothing historical, only this time frame, whit huge gaps for each artist /Elvis is missing everything between 2003-2009, same for The Beatles, MJ is missing CDs from the beginning even though it got released when this chart system starts/. I'm looking forward to this chart in about 2-3 month. I saw a bunch of Elvis CD releases for September! It will worth having another look at their charts at the end of the year too /so we have a clue about new sales/, but I doubt anything really important will come out of this /unless they'll upload an older chart database/.

If you want them I can give links to each time frame /like 1 link for each week used, with how their names are written in Japanese or their position on the chart/. --Taru29 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm listing their links to back up the numbers, at the same time I'm recalculating because I've found some I didn't count so I'm rechecking my numbers /I'm including all of the links new and old too, while updating the upper numbers/.

The Elvis (エルヴィス・プレスリー) listing:

2001.September 

Week1

Week2

Week3

I've rechecked his albums, but didn't find more /since I found another week sale for The Beatles I've rechecked my findings for them/.

Beatles (ザ・ビートルズ) listings: From 2000.November 3rd week-2001.March 3rd. week 

Week1

Week2

Week3

Week4

Week5

Week6

Week7

Week8

Week9cannot be searched /note I've recalculated the numbers while posting the links, one previously none-working week produced data, 17920 sales, I've added it to the Beatles/, if it produces data let me know and I'll update the numbers again.

Week10

Week11

Week12

Week13

Week13

Week14

Week15

Week16

Week17

Week18

Michael Jackson (マイケル・ジャクソン) listings:

Recent ones 2009.07.01-2009.08.23 (KOP, Essential Michael Jackson, Bad, Dangerous, Best of Michael Jackson and the Jackson5, Off the Wall, Number Ones) 

2009.aug 4th week

2009.aug 3rd week

2009.aug 2rd week

2009.aug 1rd week

2009.july 4rd week

2009.july 3rd. week

2009. july 2nd. week

From 2008 (KOP, Thriller 25):

2008.October 2nd, 3rd. 4rth week (KOP) 

week1

week2

week3

2008 March (Thriller 25) 

week1

week2

week3

week4

2003. December (Number Ones) 

week1

week2

week3

2001. November (Invincible) 

week1

week2

week3

week4

--Taru29 (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

where is Bing Crosby?

he should be in the list...--Nathanid (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

With 500 million in sales he won't get back on this list as that's the figure we had for him before. If there is a highly regarded source claiming 100-150 million for him, fine let's bring him back on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection template

{{editprotected}} Could somebody please remove the now incorrect {{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}} template from the top of this article? Debresser (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Killiondude (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Beatles update

MSNBC says the Beatles have sold only 600 million records, not 1 billion.[11]75.142.54.211 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably still exaggerated number, because it actually says 600 million albums, not records, which means that the 600m in albums sales could turn into 800m or so, if one included the sales of their singles too. But the source above may be something we could use later, if we are going to update The Beatles figure. I would; however, prefer just 600 records, nothing more as their actual sales should not surpass that (albums, singles, videos combined)--Harout72 (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, my calculations went as far as 400 million, if we could look into the Japanese and/or Chinese databases I wouldn't be surprised to find about 100-200 million copies for The Beatles so and estimated 500-600 million might be acceptable for them.--Taru29 (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

100-200 million for the Japanese and the Chinese markets? That is even more exaggerated than what the 750m is for Jackson's worldwide, and The Beatles' 1 billion. Japan's figure for The Beatles should be 15 million or 20m in the best case scenario. As for China, back then during when The Beatles were active, China's economical state wouldn't have allowed even the 2% of the population to have had any additional spendings for music/records consumption. In other words, the total there shouldn't be more than 20-25 million (which is a number I highly doubt). --Harout72 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As you wish then all together they should have a sale number about 50 million or less making the total sale number for The Beatles no more than 400 million /373 million actually/ :P.

I wanted to lean towards that source and accept that /since that seems way closer to reality than the 1 billion/ but okay, I'll lean towards your estimate /which apparently pretty accurate with not more than 328 million albums/ and say I'll add that 45 million we can agree for the Asian market /'cause you said 20-25m for Japan for outmost and about 20m for China/ and we get 373 million.

So can we agree than that The Beatles only sold about 400 million+ albums /because I'm open for the option that we might have left out some because they were not qualified based on sale number/ since that would your estimate suggest?

Or how much more do you think might be "lost" /also what do you think about the possibility that some of these sales might be actually recorded in other countries (not the Chinese sales or the Japanese , I'm thinking of the European sales)/? --Taru29 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and Bing Crosby

Michael Jackson is listed as having sold 350 million albums, but other sources list him as having sold over 750 million albums worldwide. Here is the reference linked to his awards page on wikipedia, which states he has sold over 750 million:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/entertainment/main3461884.shtml

Also, Bing Crosby is curiously absent from the list. Not sure of the source, but Bing Crosby's wikipedia page mentions that he has sold between 500 and 900 million records worldwide.

68.54.107.114 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)MusicalSleuth

I have removed his figures from his page as they were not sourced, even if they were, the 500 million in sales would be incorrect as his US certifications don't suggest any major sales. Not to mention that Crosby doesn't have a single certification in Canada, Germany, France, Austria, Finland and the list goes on. All in all, his sales should be around 100 million maximum considering the fact that some of his records are not shown within certification-databases in some markets as he's an early starter. This is not the case with US market as RIAA has been issuing certifications since 1958.--Harout72 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Harrana (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)In 2001, Michael Jackson received a World Music Award for having sold 750 millions of albums. He later released Invincible and some compilation CDs. Tommy Mottola, former Sony's president, said that Jackson had sold 1 billion of albums.He received a world music award, in 1996, for best selling artist in history! So...why are you claiming that he only sold 350 millions of albums??? You may dislike Jackson but you must be impartial! You desperatly want to put Jackson down using one or two sources while every big source is claiming that he sold 750+ mill. If you want credibility in this page, why do you claim that both The Beatles and Elvis Presley nsold 1+ billion? You say you won't claim that Jackson sold 750+ mill because, TO YOU, that's illogical. This page is not about what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs)


Harrana (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Harout, you want CNN sources? http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/smith.jackson.appreciation/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/

Michael Jackson's Album Sales.

Michael Jackson has Sold More than 750 Million Albums [12] and Not 350 Millions. Please Change it as soon as Possible. Michael Jackson Forever.

Desperado MJ (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

this is much better sources the other one is fan made Desperado http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ahCCqrUZd2zk

Michael Jackson Album Sales

The article on Michael Jackson, in my opinion requires a slight clarification, Michael Jackson has sold well over 750 million albums, and not 350 as your article states. Please clarify. This source supports my claim: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ahCCqrUZd2zk Wally MJC (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Wally


I don't know how else to put this - read above. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Harrana (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)In 2001, Michael Jackson received a World Music Award for having sold 750 millions of albums. He later released Invincible and some compilation CDs. Tommy Mottola, former Sony's president, said that Jackson had sold 1 billion of albums.He received a world music award, in 1996, for best selling artist in history! So...why are you claiming that he only sold 350 millions of albums??? You may dislike Jackson but you must be impartial! You desperatly want to put Jackson down using one or two sources while every big source is claiming that he sold 750+ mill. If you want credibility in this page, why do you claim that both The Beatles and Elvis Presley nsold 1+ billion? You say you won't claim that Jackson sold 750+ mill because, TO YOU, that's illogical. This page is not about what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs)


Harrana (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Harout, you want CNN sources? http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/smith.jackson.appreciation/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.123.221 (talk)


Michael Jackson did not receive a World Music Award for 750 million albums in 2001. In 2006 he received a World Music Award, an award given to artists who have sold more than 100 million albums. [13][14] If Michael Jackson sold 750 million about something, than it will be RECORDS, not albums. That figure of 750 million includes also the worldwide sales of The Jacksons and the Jackson V. So as a solo artist he surely sold less than 750 million records. In the US he sold about 80 million records (inclusive his sales after his death), of which only 61,5 million certified by the RIAA. Has Michael Jackson sold almost 700 million records outside the US as a solo artist? No, he didn't. You can almost multiply his total sales in the US with five to know what his worldwide sales are. So 80 million x 5 = about 400 million RECORDS. Not less, but surely not more. That's the reliability. Why circulated than that figure of 750 million? Who knows? Christo jones (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Chair Member of IFPI.

Christo jones , your method for "calculating Michael Jackson's records"(80 million x 5 = about 400 million RECORDS ) is not really reliable.it's just laughable! 

750M is the estimated records sales for MJ & MANY sources report it...i'm sure they know better than you--Nathanid (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Laughable? I don't think so, if we look to his best-selling albums and compare his sales in the US with his worldwide sales:
  • Off The Wall (sold 7 to 8 million in the US, 20 million worldwide, so multiplicator is less than 3)
  • Thriller (sold almost 30 million copies in the US, 110 million worldwide, so multiplicator is less than 4)
  • Bad (sold 10 million copies in the US, 30 million worldwide, so multiplicator is 3)
  • Dangerous (sold 8 million copies in the US, 32 million worldwide, so multiplicator is 4)
  • Invincible (sold 2 million copies in the US, 10 million worldwide, so multiplicator is 5)
  • Number Ones (sold 3 million copies in the US, 6 million worldwide, so multiplicator is 2)
  • Ok, there are some exceptions, but the average multiplicator is about 5 (Worldwide sales/ US sales)

There are no albums of singles where we can multiply his sales in the US with 10 to know his worldwide sales. If Jackson sold 750 million records worldwide, than the multiplicator would be 10. Why should we multiply his US sales with 10, if there aren't any albums or singles with a multiplicator of 10? Maybe you can find these calculations laughable, but they give an idea of what is possible or impossible. MJ sold about 350-400 million records as a solo artist. That's a non-inflated figure!!Christo jones (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, in the 2000 World Music Awards, Michael Jackson received the "World Music Award Artist Of The Millenium" due to being the male best selling recording artist of all time. In 1996, he received the "World Music Award Best Selling Artist Of All Time". Harrana (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to laugh on the 1 billion sale number for The Beatles and Elvis. As you can see in previous posts /not only mine but in Harout72's too/ they didn't sell that much either and can not be backed up. So let's lower them 'cause I know it better than CNN or even The Rolling Stones magazine /just as you know better than CNN how much MJ sold/. And with that /as you can see/ apparently MJ with 350 million records sold over The Beatles /Harout72's calculation only comes out as 327 19/25 million a.k.a. The Beatles sold only 328million/.

I'm hoping to see Elvis's sales too /the REAL one not the 1 billion/ you may never know maybe he sold under 350 million too. Also someone check the ABBA sales, since it feels fishy too. Also prove it to me that either of them sold that much or lower the number to 300-400 million at most /for Elvis and The Beatles, and for ABBA possibly only slightly lower but the check will tell /and back up that number/ Thanx! :D --Taru29 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_9&oldid=1151000101"