Talk:List of best-selling music artists

REACHING A VALID CONSENSUS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND VALIDITY OF THIS BEST SELLING LISTING DIRECTORY:

To all Editors and Contributors: I publish this brief with the utmost respect to all, and state without reservation that we need a formal consensus in order to establish this best-selling Wikipedia listing directory as a valid formal point of reference. Presently, as many have attribute, this best-selling listing directory is lacking in fundamental credibility. Case in point: Most of us who have done research in revisiting websites and news organizations have concluded that our best-selling listing directory is not being utilized as a point of reference by any news institution or serious informative periodical. This is more than troubling!! for it unequivocally states the lack of credibility that is presently hampering us all. What can we do to change this? What modifications can we establish to make this Wikipedia listing directory acceptable as comparable to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) best-selling list directory? "The Guinness Book of World Records" utilizes the RIAA as a point of reference in all of its tabulations and computation endeavors. Moreover, the prestigious yearly "World Almanac" which I subscribe to and represents global references in all points of listing directories, uses the RIAA as it's point of reference source for all music data. Even though as I have stated in previous brief's, the RIAA uses a faulty computation methodology that leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to accurate measurements in sales for all present entertainers and legacy artists. And to reiterate, the RIAA, only represents the certified figures in the United States and not the universality (globally) of the claimed or certified sales that we try to ascertain to. Again, this is troubling and most problematic. And yet, regardless of the RIAA methodology, "The World Almanac" does not even consider our best listing directory as a valid point of reference. I know this, for I have been inquisitive about this matter and written extensively to them vociferously defending our cause. This dilemma, and with all respect to my wiki counterparts, states a lot about the credibility factor of this article which is presently nonexistent. More and into another point that needs to be address concurrently regarding this matter and issue, is the fact that some contributors and perhaps editors have engaged in disparaging attacks against one another in refuting or disputing the validity of this Wikipedia best-selling list directory. I am hoping that all this can somehow change, and we can restore civility, decency respect and courtesy toward all opinions regardless as to how contrarian they may be to the factions in dispute. In closing, let us somehow reach a valid formal consensus by engaging in constructive dialogue for the improvements that this best-selling listing directory needs in order to be wielded as a valid point of reference by all reputed respectable arts and media organizations. We need to accomplish endeavoring through modifications and proper adjustments, this essential need if we are ever going to be taken seriously and thus supplant the RIAA as a point of reference and create validity and credibility to "our" Best-selling listing directory. Any response or constructive feedback to this brief is welcomed. Victor0327 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should never be used as a reference, so it's not at all troubling that this list isn't being utilized as a reference by any news institution or serious informative periodical. --Onorem (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Really? So, what you are stating is that it shouldn't be taking seriously? neither as a point of reference? So, what's the use in publishing this list? many scholars from the halls of Academia use Wikipedia as a point of reference. In conclusion, many will dispute the validity of your statement. Thank you for your response. Victor0327 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a fantastic starting point, but the references we use for our articles are what 'scholars from the halls of Academia' should be using as references. I'm not at all saying we shouldn't try to be as accurate as possible, or that no improvements to the methods used to define and source items from this list are possible. But no, Wikipedia itself isn't a reference. --Onorem (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point: I look up information all the time through the annals of Wikipedia, and most of the information to the subjects at hand, in correlation to other points of references, turns out to be factual. But nevertheless, thank you for your input and feedback. Victor0327 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I already provided my input, we have it for singles. I provided a very rough draft of what a highest certified artists section would look like. The cut-off for 20th century artists would be those that debuted prior to 1995, since they would have been around for the majority of the 90s rather than people who debuted during the end of the decade and released almost all of their music in the 2000s and 2010s.

"A list of the highest certified music artists from the 20th century, based on worldwide certified record sales. Artists that debuted towards the end of the 20th century are considered modern acts (1995-1999)."

295.5 Million - The Beatles

289.8 Million - Michael Jackson

234.7 Million - Elvis Presley

224.3 Million - Mariah Carey

215.1 Million - Elton John

190.1 Million - Queen

189.8 Million - Madonna

We can either have a section for this here or make it it's own page "Highest Certified Music Artists Worldwide", however this worked extremely well for the best selling singles page and now everyone refers to that instead rather than claimed sales. Never17 (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay I am still hoping everyone can jump on board with different ideas. Your input is excellent though. Let's get more feedback from all other contributors and editors and see what the final draft can look like. Regardless, it's a constructive starting point. Thanks for the input by the way. Victor0327 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, the topic of certified artists should be a secondary section and not the main one, I consider that the alleged sales are true and include Guinness or Billboard as a parameter.

I am not against placing the most prominent artists of the 20th century in their place, simply placing artists with certifications specifying that it is a flawed entity, the RIAA was accused of overcertifying the sales of some artists therefore it is not a reliable source.

And the other list must mention the best-selling artists in history.

1.Elvis Presley - 1.5 billion

2.The Beatles: 1.35 billion

3.Bing Crosby -1 billion

4.Frank Sinatra 650 million

5.ABBA - 500 million

6.Julio Iglesias- 500 million (300 million records sold worldwide published by Guinness in 1983)

The sales of Crosby and Presley are gigantic, when they died their sales increased so much that the deliveries of both were postponed until 1978. They are the best-selling soloists in history, it is not really known who has sold more Elvis or Bing albums.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/29/archives/demand-soars-for-records-of-crosby-and-presley-hits-demand-surges.html

Michael Jackson has not sold more albums than the previous ones, his sales are tied with Tom Jones, Nana Mouskouri. 2800:BF0:170:B69:E038:F5CA:1089:34A0 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

My friend regardless of what the differing points of view are; we have to try to find some type of consensus, don't' you agree? The majority of websites that I have been able to delve into specifying about the subject matter in regards as to who is the best-selling artist of all time, is quite perplexing. The majority of sources will indicate that Presley and the Beatles hold the top spot. However, even if Jackson gets posted at number 2 or 3 then we you and I can agree to disagree with the contrarian points of view. But we must do so with decency and respect to the different points of view. More and into the point, I just want to put or break down different categories that we can, as a whole, in order to be able to muster some type of an agreement, in order to establish credibility within this listing directory. Again, we are not going to agree on everything. Moreover, and I state this with the utmost respect to all. I did vote to keep this list and article. let me reiterate, I did not vote to nominate this list/article for deletion. Why? because I think we can improve the mechanics of this article with proper feedback intertwined with constructive criticism coming from everyone, including you as a contributor. Furthermore, as the editor known as "Onorem" properly corrected me; this list will not be used as a point of reference. But we can make improvements in order to establish some semblance of credibility. what do you think? If we cannot reach some type of consensual agreements to improve this list, then I will walk away displaying mutual respect to all contrarian points of view. However, in closing, I would like to give ourselves, an opportunity to make some type of improvements. How about it? Victor0327 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You have literally repeatedly posted this various times, this is not a forum. Editors have previously dismissed these claims stating that they are not accurate and cannot be attributed to the IFPI. You can check the archives, the claim of Elvis Presley being second is not shared by the IFPI who has actually claimed that Jackson was the best selling solo artist back in 1996, re-confirmed this in 2000 (check his awards page) and once again in the list that was attributed to them which had The Beatles (400m records), Jackson (350m records), Presley (300m records) in 2006.[1]

The only other attempt at tracking record sales is Chartmasters, which is a independent audit conducted by UMIX forum users using their own formula to generate equivalent album sales. Their list is also The Beatles>Jackson>Presley. However since this is fan driven we should not use them as a reference.

If your wondering where Guinness World Records gets the statement of him being the best selling solo artist from, it's parroted from his record company and Estate which long claimed he had sold 1 billion records. Even though you can read their book in the early 1980s saying that he had never been audited independently for any of his global record sales during his lifetime and disregards the 300 million sales of Bing Crosby as inflated. [2]

When asked point blank in 1984 after the success of Thriller, who was best selling singer of all time. Guinness World Records at the time later stated "Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby are the best selling solo artists with over 200 Million records sold worldwide". [3]

Currently, The Beatles and Michael Jackson are on track to cross 300m certified by the start of 2025, and sell around 1m albums per year in the US. There's a gap of over 50m separating them and Elvis, Elton John will pass Elvis Presley's certified sales long before he comes close to catching either of them. Enough with these tired discussions. Never17 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and we are in this together my friend, trying to reach some type of consensus. But on the other hand, are we going to keep going back and forth on this issue? Currently, we are engaging in a tug of war between both of you and some other contributors. And somewhere we have to stop playing these childish games. Yes, some editors from this best-selling directory list have dismissed these claims as being "inflated". However, if they were right this page and article would have never been nominated for deletion repeatedly. Moreover, many other contributors have concluded that these unsound arguments (that these sales are inflated) are just not true. I have kept quiet (through diplomacy) about this; but there is too much documentation stating otherwise. It is ridiculous and on the point of insanity to state that Presley or the Beatles have sold only 300 to 400 million records respectively. I have addressed this issue repeatedly. Now we can dismiss this issue altogether and go with the RIAA best-selling list; is that what we want? The RIAA list is obviously more accurate and is the one being used as a point of reference by everyone, from the Guinness Book of World Records to the World Almanac. Our best-selling list is not being used by no one because of the credibility problem, which is nonexistent. Interestingly, The RIAA has the Beatless at number 1 Garth Brooks at number 2 and Presley at number 3 being followed in succession by the Eagles, Led Zeppelin and Michael Jackson at number 6. And this is just in the United States. Even more and to the point of honesty and objectivity, and once again according to the RIAA, The Beatles are at number 1 and have 207 certifications followed by Presley who is at number 2 at 197 million certifications. This again is based on the totality of certified albums and singles in the United States. As I have previously mentioned before, The RIAA uses like I have repeatedly stated (and I am tired of stating) a methodology or computation system that many cannot agree with, and I have already addressed this matter in previous briefs. More and into the point, we need to be honest and truthful about this and we are not. However, you are also right; this list is based only on the amount of total available certifications, which makes this article and best listing directory problematic, because of the unsound arguments that I have already previously mentioned and has been shared by some contributors very pointedly stating (the obvious) that {Music did not commence in the year 1990}. And much more troubling is the fact that some contributors, perhaps like yourself, and (I state this with courtesy and respect) have incorrectly concluded that Drake, Rihanna and Eminen, have sold more units than Presley and the Beatles, for they have more certifications. This is a fallacy argument which can never have credibility. I hope that you and some other contributors that I have the utmost respect for can see through these blurred lines and not shroud or obscure the issues with misguided innuendos. Let us hope that we can somehow come to some type of consensus and thus correct these measures because if we can't (then we would just have to respectfully call it a day). To quote you my friend "Enough of these tired discussions". Victor0327 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Bing Crosby and Elvis Presley are the best seller artist in the history . Guinness (1997)

https://archive.org/details/guinnessbookofre0000unse_a8h8/page/174/mode/1up?q=Bing+Crosby+

The Beatles sold 1 billion records ( Guinness , 1999)

GUINNESS SAID IN 1997 " BING AND ELVIS ARE THE BEST SELLER ARTIST AND THE BEATLES ARE THE BEST SELLER GROUP .

THERE'S NOTHING MORE TO DISCUSS!

SINATRA SOLD 600 MILLONS RECORDS ( CANNES,1998)

Ok, That's all 157.100.143.88 (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Yes and Yes; but we are never going to reach any type of consensus with all due respect to all participants. It's very hard and almost impossible to appease both sides. However, I did try with all my might. However, it became an effort in futility, and I can't no longer proceed with this issue for we will never be able to agree on this or any other issue. I want to thank all sides for your input and feedback. Once again thanks to all. Victor0327 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please stop arguing about which artist or artists have sold the most physical albums. This page is not about forcing other people to include X artist or X number in this article, but rather about how to write the article. I think basing a conversation on X artist diverts the conversation away from people who actually want to improve the structure or writing of this page. An aggravating factor might be demanding that your sales figures be taken into account when you can't even log into a user account. Paladium (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of objectivity, the list should be ranked based on available certifications and claimed sales should be omitted altogether. Claimed sales figures reported prior to the digital era are likely inflated due to less regulation and are difficult to verify. Available certifications provide a fair point of comparison for all. Instantwatym (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, for the sake of objectivity. We can simply come up with a cutoff differentiating modern acts and 20th century acts, so anyone who debuted towards the end of the 20th century (1995-99) would be listed among the modern music artists. Eminem for example would be a modern artists, whereas Mariah Carey who debuted in the late 80s is clearly a legacy act. Never17 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Rihanna's Total certified units wrong?

The Total certified units for Rihanna in the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists#250_million_or_more_records seems to be wrong. The list is sorted by most units and Rihanna is at place 8, but has almost double the amount listed as the top one: https://imgur.com/t446UkU 2A01:C22:A582:3C00:DFAC:78AF:8E7:9517 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this list is erroneously ranked based on "claimed sales" reported by any source, whether reliable or not, irrespective of significant discrepancies between "claimed sales" and available certifications. This is done for the sake of elevating legacy artists based on their claimed sales figures, which are nearly impossible to verify in the absence of certifications. There's even more egregious examples than Rihanna, where sales of modern artists are being undermined. Take a look at The Weeknd entry on this list. He has 244 million available certifications, including over 150 million in the US alone and his claimed sales are reported as 75 million based on an article in a local San Jose newspaper. Said San Jose newspaper actually took this oudated claimed sales figures from a StubHub article (which isn't a reliable source from record sales either) that was published years prior. Isjadd773 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your point is well taken: However, how can we fix this problem? We have tried without success to somehow reach out to all parties of interest and thus restore some credibility to this best-selling listing directory. I and many other good-hearted contributors have tried without any measurement of success to improve this article. One of our many problems is solving this endless riddle; Claimed sales versus total available certifications. It's problematic enough to exclude 2oth century legacy entertainers such as Bing Crosby or Tino Rossi, both of whom may have sold "umpteen" millions of records at a time where no global agency of records certifications existed. Or how about the exclusion of Glenn Miller? who was the recipient of the first gold record bestowed by his (record label RCA) on an entertainer for his classic "Chattanooga Choo Choo" single in 1944. He may have sold millions and yet no certifying body existed at the time in order to certify his sales, which were astronomical according to a vast majority of historians, pundits and musicologists who will attest to this fact. Getting back to RCA which went bankrupt in 1986, and fast forwarding to 1992 whereas some and perhaps 20 percent of the sales of Elvis Aron Presley where somehow located and guess what? certified by the RIAA. RIAA executives went through the files of his late manager "Colonel Tom Parker" who practically monetarily ripped Presley off (Presley had less than 5 million dollars in his bank coffers at the time of his death) due to the illicit shenanigans of his late manager and thus certified whatever sales they could locate or find. What did the executives of the RIAA find? Well so far, Presley has been awarded 299 RIAA certifications more than any other recording act in the history of recorded music. And to reiterate, they have only certified 20 percent of his all-time record sales. As I have pointed out in past briefs there is over 350 Presley albums and over 125 Presley singles that for a lack of a better word have not been certified. My point is that you cannot exclude these claim sales figures or state without sound argument or evidence that all these sales figures were "inflated". Musical knowledgeable historians and pundits will dispute the validity of this preposterous argument. And yet let us appease the other side which states and I quote "for the sake of objectivity this list should be ranked based on "available certifications" and "claimed sales" should be omitted altogether. And by the way both excellent contributors echoing the same rhetorical argument "for the sake of objectivity". So, in earnest what do we do? moreover, you have also raised a good point being "the articles where this best-selling listing directory gets its sales figures, such as "StubHub" the example you provided, which are not reliable and must be discarded. More and into the point, we must not continue to use unreliable biased articles that fit into our POV's (Point of Views) while discarding others that dispute the basic tenets of truthfulness, honesty and of course the overused emblem of objectivity. In closing we have tried unsuccessfully to delve out a formula that pleases or appeases all sides, however we have failed. We can try again. However, we need everyone to respect through mutual accord everyone's constructive feedback and output. I can't believe I still have hope in this... Lol... Victor0327 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The "Definitions" section is unsourced drivel that violates WP:NOR

The "definitions" section is primarily unsourced drivel that is propogating editor opinions and biases and original arguments as facts, whilst violating WP:NOR and OR by SYNTH. It should be removed for violating clear cut Wikipedia policies. Furthermore there is no need for concensus either when removing unsourced content or violations of WP:NOR.

The contents present one-sided arguments as to why certifications for modern artists may be higher than "claimed sales" figures based on perceived inflation in the streaming era (according to the opinions of Wikipedia editors in the absence of any secondary source presented, and not according to the certifying bodies). There could be multitude of other valid reasons for the discrepancy, such as poor reporting by questionable sources or oudated figures reported by reliable sources. The section also fails to explain why the largely unverified "claimed sales" figures of legacy artists seem grossly inflated in comparison to their certifications. This is indicative of an agenda, and one that is again unsupported by any secondary source presented in the article. Isjadd773 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I would start a WP:RFC, to get more editors involved in this discussion. Erick (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with starting a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If we start one, then please link it somewhere can be seen by everyone. Paladium (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Coldplay

Isjadd773 Media outlets began reporting that Coldplay sold 100 million albums, rather than 100 million records, following an edit made by GustavoCza , which cited a YouTube link to the official channel of the Coldplay. It means they might have copied the wording from the Wikipedia itself. Recommend you to familiarise with WP:Circular TheWikiholic (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Variety and the British Phonographic Industry have both reported the claim a month before that edit. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

BPI doesn't track the record sales outside of UK, and both BPI and Variety reporting the same thing on the same day (on May 5, 2021) doesn't look like a coincidence, but it is obvious that they are reporting what the record label released. Besides that it's common among media to report record sales as album sales. So no need to add any footnotes when we have sources like BBC and EW explicitly reporting record sales instead of album sales a few days prior and after to this. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple articles from the BBC saying 100 million albums instead of records:

• https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240624-the-reason-coldplay-are-the-21st-centurys-most-loved-band
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-64380094
• https://www.bbc.com/news/live/clwwy5zx0vzt?page=6
• https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2021/radio-2-in-concert

Pollstar, Rolling Stone and The Telegraph also have made the same claim, do you genuinely believe my little edit was so influential? That none of these media outlets have fact checked anything? You are just in denial at this point.

• https://www.rollingstone.co.uk/music/live-reviews/coldplay-live-at-wembley-chris-martin-delivers-a-masterclass-in-showmanship-21800/
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/coldplay-billion-dollar-empire/
• https://news.pollstar.com/2024/03/26/q1-chart-topper-coldplays-music-of-the-spheres-on-track-to-be-highest-grossing-band-tour-of-all-time/

And here's yet another source from before my edit was made:

• https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/dermot-dave/could-coldplays-next-gig-be-in-offaly

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already said that you can find many in the archives stating that it's common among media to report record sales as album sales. And it has been noted multiple times that media is picking wording and figures from Wikipedia, hence why we have a policy WP: Circular. TheWikiholic (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, what are you trying to prove by saying "they are reporting what the record label released"? That's literally what all outlets do, even the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Certifying bodies do not report exactly what the label report. They do an independent audit by using an independent agency and reward them certifications if the audited figures meet their thresholds. TheWikiholic (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about certifications. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I already gave you three reliable sources from before my edit. It's only WP:Circular according to your own crying. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Variety is a consensus reliable source. If you take issue with their published content and/or have concerns you wish to address, you are welcome to write to their editors to seek clarifications and request retractions if its agreed than an error has been made. In the meantime, your personal opinion does not outweight consensus reliable sources, not on this article nor anywhere else. Isjadd773 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several things to consider in order to handle this situation properly. One is that it is not uncommon to find news sources claiming sales figures as if they were for albums rather than records. This happens even with the highest claimed sales figures, such as the 1 billion figure for Presley (Deutsche Welle) or Jackson (United Press International).

It is also important to highlight the existence of policies such as WP:BURDEN and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that help in handling a case like this. Without evaluating whether the 100M albums figure is exaggerated or not for Coldplay, it should be taken into account that the "Claimed sales" column should list sales estimates for records (and not albums only).

Additionally, when a change is disputed, unilateral actions without prior consensus should be avoided. For that reason, I am going to reverse the latest modification in order to restore the article to a state in which the references refer to "records" and not to "albums", and in which the uniformity of the "Claimed sales" column is preserved for all artists/bands on the List, since this disputed change adds a footnote with explanations.

I encourage that this be properly discussed while trying to reach a common consensus. Salvabl (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Coldplay have 33 billion streams on Spotify alone, scored numerous IFPI year-end entries (including two number-one albums) and are about to reach $1 billion grossed from a single tour, 100 million albums is not an exaggerated figure for them and this situation is hardly comparable to Presley and Jackson. Leave the figure without a note for the sake of uniformity but let the source be accurate and recent at least, instead of using two outdated citations. As for the band's Wikipedia article, which that user also tried to mess up, it will keep the note, as it has been there for years. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If we assume that all 33 billion streams were generated in the USA, the world's largest music market, they would only translate to 22 million album equivalent units according to RIAA metrics. If these streams came from the UK, Germany, or other countries, the equivalent units would be even lower, as many countries do not count streams from the two most popular tracks on an album. TheWikiholic (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

When there is prior consensus about a source being reliable (e.g., Variety), WP:BURDEN and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is pretty much obsolete. If it were otherwise then there would be no need to establish sources being reliable in the first place. Based on what I've seen from the discussion above, the editor provided multiple reliable sources so you or another editor refusing to them is more of a case of WP:OWN and trying to say that your opinions supplant information reported by multiple reliable sources. The onus/burden falls on you to convince others and achieve consesus as to why the multiple reliable sources are wrong in this instance and you are correct and this hasn't happened yet. Isjadd773 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Many artists on this list, particularly those from the 20th century, have multiple independent and reliable sources reporting higher claimed sales. However, the reliability of these sources doesn't support their inclusion. Media outlets, regardless of their credibility, often report on press releases from record labels or interviews with the artists themselves. It’s surprising to see that you, an editor who has consistently advocated for organizing the list based on available certifications, are now supporting claimed sales over verified certifications.

Lastly, none of the artists on this list are ranked purely based on album sales, except for Coldplay at present. TheWikiholic (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should support verified certifications over claimed sales. When we focus on claimed sales, media "claiming" a different number gets included because is the main criteria on the article and the value these artist are organized in the list. Paladium (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider my stance contradictory. I have advocated for this article to be revamped to omit claimed sales and rank artists based on certifications due to the disputes arising from claimed sales figures, such as the case here. Nevertheless, the article currently includes claimed sales and ranks artists based on them. With that being considered, the claimed sales should at least be based on reliable sources and follow WP:RS; and figures reported by reliable sources shouldn't be removed on a whim. There should be prior consensus about errors made by reliable sources. Isjadd773 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Revamping an article that needs a total overhaul: An argument for fairness and objectivity:

I guess I can start this way. Very simple and readable with respect and professional courtesy to all contributor's and editor's [pro and con] on both sides of the argument. First and foremost, 2 points, the first being, record labels do not lie. Nor do they misrepresent the truth about their independent unit sales figures. This is due to the obvious fact that they have paid or are paying royalties to their respective artists based or rather depending on their sales. They cannot inflate their sales for marketing purposes. In fact, the RIAA certifies the sales from record label agencies who pay a fee to the (RIAA auditors) for all independent audited figures which come, as stated, from the record label and not any newspaper periodicals. This point should be addressed and factually revisited. As such and I have witness this; the second point that needs to be convey are the outdated and unreliable periodicals that some contributors from this page and article, get their sales figure from. These outdated news or media news editorials have distorted the verity and shroud controversy and mistrust to this best-selling listing article. This practice is wrong and should be obliterated. The contributors should be getting their sales information from reputed reliable sources including but not limited to, record labels whose veracity cannot come into question. As previously stated, record labels cannot "inflate" their sales numbers for marketing purposes. Oh yes, some wiki editors and counterparts will state that numerous artists from "the legacy 20th century" edition such as Bing Crosby whose "DECCA" Label claimed sales figures of 300 million are grossly inflated without any supporting evidence to the contrary. More and into the point, that the RCA records label or Capitol records or rather (EMI) inflated the Beatles and Elvis Presley's unit sales to reiterate, "for marketing purposes". I respectfully ask; based on what? What would be the reasoning for the record labels to inflate their respective sales numbers? for a propaganda motive? I beg to differ. We have disputed this subject endlessly without reaching any formal consensus. What this page and article has done is dispute the validity of Presley's and the Beatles billion sales claims, and thus reduce their sales numbers to 500 million for Presley and 600 million for the Beatles, while at the same time incrementing or increasing Michael Jacksons sales numbers from 350 million to 500 million based on "total available certifications". This maneuver has raised an enormity wave of protest from contributors, avid readers and musical pundits, throughout many websites and platforms who have invoked through persistence the lack of truthfulness, objectivity and sheer honesty of this best-selling listing directory. Again, I ask is this right? In fact, this article and best-selling directory has been formally accused by many contributors of becoming a "Michael Jackson fan page". This fallacy needs to be address and corrected, and we must do this if we are ever going to be a factual point of reference bounded with legitimacy and trustworthiness. I guess you will ask what do we do about the rankings based on certifications? the answer? I guess we can have two separate listings one being ranking the legacy entertainers or artists based on claimed sales and the other a ranking of modern artists based on certified units. I don't see any other way!! We cannot omit claimed sales from the past nor disregard modern based certifications. I welcome with courtesy and respect any input from any contributor as a rebuttal to this brief. Once again,thank you for giving me an opportunity for this feedback. Victor0327 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Record labels absolutely do lie for the sake of PR, they take a claim and run with it because it makes said artist look good. The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and Bing Crosby have all been claimed by their labels/companies to have sold over a billion records several times, the problem is not the aspect of people being biased towards one artist or another, but it is based on whether the claims are verifiable. No one will take the page seriously if we use claims like that. Bing Crosby missing the amount of certifications required to be on the page based on the definitions it's had for the last decade is what prevents him from being on the page. If one artist was missing millions of certifications, then every other artist would be missing certifications. Outside of Nielsen Soundscan, Certifications are the only official method of determining how much an artist has sold, the problem is the aspect of streams resulting in inflated certifications, which will make it confusing to see an artist like Eminem being listed as selling more than the Beatles. So if this article would want to be based on accuracy, it would need to be split between 20th century acts and modern/streaming era acts, with both lists being organized based on total available certifications. Something I did notice is that every editor who has advocated for Bing Crosby's claimed sales being added in the last month or so is that they all make the same inflammatory statements regarding MJ's claimed sales or try to advocate for several other artists such as ABBA and Nana Mouskouri's highest claimed sales. Not sure where the evidence of an "enormous wave of protesters" towards MJ's claimed sales are from, but the belief that the page is an "MJ fanpage" is moot when the method that is being used for sales is applied to every artist from his era and not just MJ himself. The one person who the most vocal against increasing MJ's sales was someone who exhibited control over the page for several years, going as far as to try to ban every editor who was involved with MJ's pages from editing the page without any justification. LaughinElf (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, my friend let me begin by the stating the obvious; have you delve into other opinion sites about the subject at hand? or read other websites whereas readers voice their opinions grammatically so to speak? How about the discontentment arising on the fact that this page was repeatedly nominated for deletion? not just once but to reiterate, repeatedly. Many articles and countless books being indicative that the billion sales claims for the Beatles, Presley and perhaps Crosby, were tantamount as verifiable. Even the Guinness Book of World records which comes under attack from perhaps good contributors like you, seem to state that your argument is feeble and erroneous. Check the archives; Yes, I know, we have been over this issue countless times but are we correct going forward on this course? especially with so many articles and books as previously stated, being contrarian to your point of view. Moreover, "so you are not sure where the evidence of an enormous wave of protesters toward Michael Jackson claimed sales are from". Really? well not attacking your observation with any sarcasm, but this is very prevalent throughout many websites which stress talking points about the subject at hand. This is more than just "one person being vocal" against increasing Michael Jackson's purported astronomical sales increases". This is just an observation on my part, or maybe an experiment. But nevertheless, we must do better, for we are lacking credibility and legitimacy in this endeavor. Thank you for your feedback and response. Victor0327 (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The page has only been nominated for 5 times, twice in 2005, once in 2006, once in 2012, and once just a few months ago. The first two were in the same year when the article was still unstable and made the same point about there being no way to tell how many records an artist sold, and that the sales listed are guesses. The only person who accused the page of inflating MJ's sales in their nomination was blocked for vandalism just shortly afterward, and the consensus was speedy keep. The nomination in 2012 was regarding a page fork for sales between 50-66 million, created by a random editor. So no, there hasn't been repetitive times when the page was nominated for deletion based on discontentment. The last time the page was nominated, the person again noted that they believed it was impossible to track sales and argued for other artists to be included based on their highest claimed sales, which can't be implemented based on the current definitions listed on the page. Also, GWR is not the arbiter of record sales, since they simply take claims from record companies or artists themselves and publish them, they don't track sales themselves. I'm still curious on what specific websites are complaining about MJ's sales being inflated in particular, and why no other artist is accused of this besides him… LaughinElf (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, my friend you do not think that 5 times is sufficient? and I would have to verify the reasons why. Not that I don't believe you. Yet the article is still very unstable and controversial. And moreover, the complaints are still extremely prevalent. Not just on this discussion forum but on opposite discussion forums where the subject at hand is constantly disputed, such as "Reddit" or "Quorum" to name just a few where the discontent when discussing the subject matter is widespread and frequent. And more and into the point, if you check the talking points of this forum, then you will realize that it goes beyond the scope of neutrality and decency. This article has been accused of being "problematic to its core" by more than one contributor. A good article does not have this type of negative feedback. There has been more than just one-person accusing the page of inflating Jackson's sales. Check the talking points in the discussion pages if they haven't been deleted. Furthermore, as I stated repeatedly the Guinness Book of World Records is a book of facts. Of course it is not an arbiter of record sales. It is to reiterate a book of facts. They get their information from reliable sources such as the RIAA when it comes to their point of references. It has The Beatles as the best-selling band with over a billion records sold and it has Elvis as the best-selling solo act with also a billion records sold. How can anyone dispute this? And why does it seem that this is the only article or best-selling listing directory that states for the record that Presley's sales are inflated. Even though he has 299 RIAA award certificates, more than any other recording act in this country alone. Let alone the RIAA auditors who went on record in 1992, establishing the fact he (Presley) had indeed surpass the billion-mark echelon in unit sales. Is it your opinion that the RIAA auditors are also erroneous in their auditing? This best-selling listing directory on the other hand, gets its sales figures from newspaper periodicals and other media outlets which are mostly outdated lacking veracity and factuality. Regardless I respect your zeal. You seem to be a vociferous defender of this article. I have no problem with that. Needless to state I did vote to keep this article. I believe that we can make it more credible and factual. However, as previously stated, this article needs some serious adjustments and modifications in order to establish itself in the domain of truthfulness, honesty and objectivity. In closing, once again, thank you for your response and feedback. Victor0327 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There's never going to be a consensus on whether any artist has inflated sales or not, since there's no way to track every single record sold from the beginning of the music industry. It's just strange to accuse one artist of being inflated while batting for other artists to have their highest claimed sales. Several people also complain about other artists having inflated sales throughout the last decade, which is prevalent in the talk pages for Elvis, Bing Crosby, MJ, and The Beatles. The claim for Elvis' "299 million award certificates" is misleading since the figure is the total amount of awards that he received, not the total amount of records he sold, which is evident when 171 of the awards are gold records that each equate to sales of 500,000. The GWR site states that his awards equate to 146.5 million in albums and 50.5 million in singles, with the total being 196.5 million in unit sales. His current listed unit sales on the page from the US equate to 199.650 million. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/70109-most-riaa-certificates-ever. Again, the only way to establish the most credible and factual list possible is through omitting claimed sales and going based on total certifications allocated to specific artists, since those sales are all tracked and audited by the industry. If you want the highest claimed sales to be added to the page, you can go through an RFC process on the subject, until then they will never be added to the page based on the current definitions. LaughinElf (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. And let me also add that a consensus on any point whether its certified sales versus claimed sales, it's a schism that grows further and further apart to the point that no agreement can ever be reached. Believe me I have tried to appease both sides of the aisle. Moreover, omitting claimed sales is the equivalent of stating that acts like Bing Crosby, Mario Lanza, Glenn Miller and Tino Rossi never recorded a single track. This can be incredulous!! However, this is the reason that this best-selling listing directory will forever be problematic in establishing credibility. The reasoning for this? Music did not commence with the advent of Rihanna, Drake or even Michael Jackson. No, the first phonograph recording commenced with a song from one Enrique Caruso, way back in 1923. Has anybody heard of him? My point being that no independent audited figures were ever established for any of those entertainers, for there was no global certification industry tracking any sales way back then. So, in summary I agree with you. In closing, I would like to commend you for taking the time to respond to my briefs and feedback. You are a very knowledgeable and well verse contributor on this subject and it was a delight exchanging points of view with you. Again, thank you for your time and courtesy. Victor0327 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)