Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Who is extrapolating this Pop 100 data?

The chart wasn't even around until 2005! I keep seeing this on all these articles... Anyone care to point out HOW in hell people are coming up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.153.81 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Carey's allbum sales

IVE BEEN TRYING TO PUT UP AN EXACT TOTAL OF ALBUM AND SINGLE SALES WORLDWIDE AND SOMEONE KEEPS DELETING IT AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY??? I PUT A SOURCE, I MEEN YOU NEED TO POST A REASON FOR THE DELETION OR LEAVE THIS SITE! THANKYOU

WORLDWIDE TOTAL OF ALBUM AND SINGLE SALES: 215 Million [1]

Sources, have been provided, someone stated 18 million for her debut lp and states other sales for carey's other lp's but provide no source. The sales below are a litte exaggarated. What do others thinks? Halla Back?

Here's another source you can check out: http://www.mundomariah.com/discscharts.htm Baby Bash 10:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The one up above me

That's not even a proof, douh stupid, don't you see that is a web site of mariah carey fans ? They didn't put any sources there, so they are not so a good source, maybe they are fans who say lies. I love mariah but I must admit that she has sold 180 million albums, please be objective.

Album information
Mariah Carey
Emotions
MTV Unplugged
  • Label: Columbia Records
  • Released: June 2, 1992
  • Chart positions: #3 US, #3 UK, #11 CAN, #7 AUS, #13 JAP
  • Last RIAA description: 3x platinum on December 13 1994, Exact: 2,727,307 (ending 2005)
Music Box
Merry Christmas
Daydream
Butterfly
#1's
Rainbow
Glitter
Greatest Hits
  • Label: Columbia Records
  • Released: December 4 2001
  • Chart positions: #3 Japan, #52 US, #46 (2001) #7 (2005) UK, #60 AUS
  • Last RIAA award description: Platinum on January 31 2003, Exact: 779,069 (ending 2005)
  • Singles: n/a
  • Japan sales: 220,000 copies
  • Worldwide sales: 5 million copies
Charmbracelet
The Remixes
  • Label: Island Def Jam Records
  • Released: October 14 2003
  • Chart positions: #26 US, #35 UK #95 Japan
  • Last RIAA award description: Uncertified, Exact: 227,824 (ending 2005)
  • Singles: "U Like This (Megamix)" (promo)
  • Japan sales: 7,000 copies
  • Worldwide sales: 1 million copies
The Emancipation of Mimi

'Now have a look at these sources. I've put 2 sources which state 17mil for debut lp and have sources for her albums. Also added South Africa Fan Club as they contacted carey's record company directly.

Album information
Mariah Carey
Emotions
MTV Unplugged
Music Box
Merry Christmas
Daydream
Butterfly
#1's
Rainbow
Glitter
Greatest Hits
Charmbracelet
The Remixes
The Emancipation of Mimi

According to Billboard magazine, 63 million copies of Carey albums had been shipped to retailers in the United States by July 2005. This made her the second best-selling female singer in the country behind Barbra Streisand, who had shipped 70.5 million albums as of that date. [3]

An interview with V Magazine revealed that Carey had sold around 180 million albums worldwide. [4]. Her official website on December 22 2005, stated she sold more than 160 million albums source.

US Album Sales

MARIAH CAREY (RIAA) 9.000.000 (9x Platinum) (SoundScan) 4,823,000 (Columbia House) 100.000 Total: 4,923,000
EMOTIONS (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 3,567,000 (Columbia House) 600.000 Total: 4,167,000
MTV UNPLUGGED EP (RIAA) 3.000.000 (3x Platinum) (SoundScan) 2,726,000 Total: 2,726,000
MUSIC BOX (RIAA) 10.000.000 (10x Platinum) (SoundScan) 7,143,000 (BMG Music Club) 735.000 Total: 7,878,000
MERRY CHRISTMAS (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 4,487,000 Total: 4,487,000
DAYDREAM (RIAA) 10.000.000 (10x Platinum) (Columbia House) 1.500.000 (SoundScan) 7,527,000 (BMG Music Club) 848.000 Total: 9,875,000
BUTTERFLY (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 3,691,000 Total: 3,675,000
#1'S (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 3,444,000 (BMG Music Club) 1.000.000 Total: 4,444,000
RAINBOW (RIAA) 3.000.000 (3x Platinum) (SoundScan) 2,908,000 (BMG Music Club) 443.000 (Columbia House) 500.000 Total: 3,851,000
GLITTER (RIAA) 1.000.000 (1x Platinum) (SoundScan) 601,000 Total: 601,000
GREATEST HITS (RIAA) 1.000.000 (1x Platinum) (SoundScan) 602,000 Total: 602,000
CHARMBRACELET (RIAA) 1.000.000 (1x Platinum) (SoundScan) 1,116,000 (BMG Music Club & Columbia House) 170.000 Total: 1,286,000
THE REMIXES (SoundScan) 201,000 Total 201,000
[[5] source]

If we use the new soundscan numbers that DeVante provided, the sales of these albums would look more like this...

MARIAH CAREY (RIAA) 9.000.000 (9x Platinum) (SoundScan) 4,829,087(sondscan started counting sales alot of weeks after the release of mariahs debut) (Columbia House) 100.000 Total: 9.000.000
(soundscan 4.929.087): started counting after therelease of mariahs debutEMOTIONS (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 3,568,847 (Columbia House) 600.000 Total: 4,168,847
MTV UNPLUGGED EP (RIAA) 3.000.000 (3x Platinum) (SoundScan) 2,727,307 Total: 2,727,307
MUSIC BOX (RIAA) 10.000.000 (10x Platinum) (SoundScan) 7,153,718 (BMG Music Club) 735.000 Total: 7,888,718
MERRY CHRISTMAS (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 4,600,150 Total: 4,600,150
DAYDREAM (RIAA) 10.000.000 (10x Platinum) (Columbia House) 1.500.000 (SoundScan) 7,534,712 (BMG Music Club) 848.000 Total: 9,882,712
BUTTERFLY (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 3,690,408 Total: 3,690,408
#1'S (RIAA) 5.000.000 (5x Platinum) (SoundScan) 3,522,094 (BMG Music Club) 1.000.000 Total: 4,522,094
RAINBOW (RIAA) 3.000.000 (3x Platinum) (SoundScan) 2,916,735 (BMG Music Club) 443.000 (Columbia House) 500.000 Total: 3,859,735
GLITTER (RIAA) 1.000.000 (1x Platinum) (SoundScan) 611,259 Total: 611,259
GREATEST HITS (RIAA) 1.000.000 (1x Platinum) (SoundScan) 602,000 Total: 602,000
CHARMBRACELET (RIAA) 1.000.000 (1x Platinum) (SoundScan) 1,132,049 (BMG Music Club & Columbia House) 170.000 Total: 1,302,049
THE REMIXES (SoundScan) 227,824 Total: 227,824

69.249.118.231 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All international sales of old albums seem to be blown out of proportion. Even 7.8M in the US +2 in the EU leaves 18 million in the rest of the world. No way. Nor 9+1 (US+EU) to get to 25.... It's 15 M in 1/3 of the world market when 10 M were sold in the other 2/3 including by far her best market. These are jus fan reports...

Even TEOM is more likely below 8M, Island declared 8M shipped two weeks ago, funny her website said 9 sold a month ago, sales are always below shipments. 5+ (US) + 1(EU) leaves 3 m out, and it has not been a worlwide smash...

I Know what you mean I have been trying to put accurate sales but people deleted it because they would rather have fan fiction!


Yes, i'm appalled at the information provided in all these posts. It ALL comes from fansites. No official bulletins, no IFPI, no Worldwide cerifications. Island last went official with 8.2m, that was a few months ago, the album had done its course by then. Maybe a few top ups here and there may be expected, but considering there have not been shipments to the US since (where there are still a few hundred thousand to sell), nor in Europe, Japan, canada, Australia, a further 2m is ridiculous, especially considering the album's re-release basically only worked in the US.
  • Her fansites posted on the page get correct information from Island/Sony. The album sales are right and they also come from some bulletins. How do U know TEOM hasn't sold that much in Japan, Canada, Australia or other places around the World? TEOM has sold over 10 million as of July 2006. Thank You.LAUGH90 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

One of Mariah's fans keeps changing the certification of Emotions album. Emotions got certified 4 x platinum in the US, but someone ill-informed keeps changing to over-certify the figure, which is far from the actual certification of that album! It's not yet certified 5 x platinum as of 2006! The most recent certification of Emotions album was 4 x platinum in 2003 by RIAA! Please don't change the certification of that album as the fan who kept changing it with wrong information might read this note. Or administrators on this mariah's article should keep her/him from doing it because it's ill-informed and against the policy here!

  • Emotions was certified 5x Platinum in January 2003. It was certified 4x Platinum in September 1994.LAUGH90 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this, my source is http://www.rockonthenet.com/artists-c/mariahcarey_main.htm

Soundscan figures

Emotions: 4,170,000(Soundscan + record club sales)

MTV Unplugged: 2,726,000

Music Box: 7,878,000*(Soundscan + record club sales)

Merry Christmas: 4,487,000

Daydream: 9,875,000(Soundscan + record club sales)

Butterfly: 3,675,000

Ones: 4,444,000*(Soundscan + record club sales)

Rainbow: 3,851,000(Soundscan + record club sales)

Charmbracelet: 1,280,000(Soundscan + record club sales)

Are these the United States sales? You've failed to provide a source. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok,whoever thinks this is their page and their the only ones who can change it are crazy. this is for everyone and ive been changing it to the rite stuff. i dont need a stupid source when im not putting new information on there. Unprotect the page and please put these sales figures: US single sales: 22 million Worldwide single sales:50 million (taken from mariah carey sigles discography-wikipedia) US album sales: 63 million worldwide album sales-160 million

Total worldwide sales- 210,000,000+ million (now are you happy, i was never trying to put unreliable sales, every artist should have the correct sales and thats all i was trying to do)


I have exact U.S. sales numbers as of ending 2005 for all albums. The source is mariahdaily.com(find Thurs., Jan 12,2006). 'Mimi' is updated for 2006.

Mariah Carey- 4,829,087 (post 1991)/ estimated 9 million from release date

Emotions- 3,568,847

MTV Unplugged EP- 2,727,307

Music Box- 7,153,718

Merry Christmas- 4,600,150

Daydream- 7,534,712

Butterfly- 3,690,408

Number 1's- 3,522,094

Rainbow- 2,916,735

Glitter- 611,259

Greatest Hits- 795,788

Charmbracelet- 1,132,049

The Remixes- 227,824

The Emancipation of Mimi- 5,132,693(as of: 1/23/06)



Note: All albums but 'Mimi's sales are as of ending 2005. 'Mimi' is updated every week. Also, record club #s aren't included. These are soundscan only.

By: DeVante'

Page protection

I requested page protection on this article because people were adding unsourced sales figures, taking away sourced ones, and altering others. There's no way this article can be considered anything to go by until reliable, verifiable sources can be added that support all of the figures and chart positions, so that they don't keep changing every day. Extraordinary Machine 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Has this been sorted out yet? Jkelly 18:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cover

sorry but i have a ask: Why don't is a cover? i don't understend:Are these the United States sales? You've failed to provide a source. —L&D . . . (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page until disputes between the two anons can be resolved here. The page was changed atleast 3 times by each editor (3RR rule). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

CENSURE? The bit deleted simply pointed out a mismatch between sales in country-by-country breakdown and the sales reposrted from fansites in the discography. Pleaple should be allowed to see that there is an inconsistency on Wikipedia itself- that when we count certifications the numbers add up differently than what fansites say. Funny Orane seems to believe he alos knows the truth and thinks he's got the right to stop users from checking a mismatch on Wikipedia sources. He will delete this bit as well, no doubt.

Extraordinary Machine's changes

The changes that I made that were decribed by you as 'errors' are all correct. Pretty much the only changes I made where adding in which singles were double A sides, correcting the orders of single releases & chart poitions; I have done nothing wrong and would appreciate it if you didn't just randomly change it back without any explanation. 195.93.21.37 00:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Those singles were only released as double A-sides in certain countries; to mention them as double A-sides here would imply that they were released together everywhere. "Sweetheart" received an official release in some parts of the world, as did "Joy to the World" and "If It's Over", to my knowledge. As far as I know, "Fly Like a Bird" was released as a promo between "We Belong Together" and "Shake It Off" (not after "So Lonely", which would be now) and "Can't Take That Away"/"Crybaby" was released after "Against All Odds". "Boy (I Need You)" and "Irrestistible" were released as promos, and I think "The One" was as well (which I forgot to mention in the article). Incidentally, I made sure to retain some of your contributions (such as chart positions) rather than perform a blanket revert, so I did not "randomly change it back". However, I was mistaken when I removed the note about "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town" being a promo, so I apologise for that. Extraordinary Machine 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about about the 'random' thing. However, I'm pretty sure "If It's Over" was never released as an official single anywhere. "Without You" was released in most countries, and the only places "Never Forget You" was released it was as a double A side with it "Without You". "Against All Odds" was released in some non-U.S. countries in September 2000, whereas CTTA/CB was released in the U.S. in June 2000. "Boy (I Need You)" was released as a promo with "Irresistible" and "You Got Me", I put it as "Boy (I Need You)" / "Irresistible" as BINY was the single internationally and in the U.S. "Irresistible" got the airplay. "Don't Stop" & "Never Too Far" were a double A side.

With regards to "Fly Like a Bird" and my placing of other promos (eg. "The Roof", "Whenever You Call") at the end of the rest of the singles from each album, I simply thought that as they weren't properly released they're difference should be made more obvious. 195.93.21.37 17:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Album Covers

Can we get pictures of the album covers from the album pages?

I don't think that the use of every one of them on the article would meet Wikipedia's fair use criteria. Extraordinary Machine 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not can we use the albums covers?


Picking and choosing

I see that editors are persistently replacing cited sales figures (originally from http://www.mariah-carey-fan.com/), which is completely ridiculous. You can't use http://www.mundomariah.com/discscharts.htm to inflate some worldwide sales figures whilst ignoring the fact that the sales figures they list for other albums are lower than the figures on this article. The same goes for http://www.mariahcarey.co.za/sales.html . We shouldn't pick and choose which sources to cite from depending on whether they list a higher sales figure or not. Extraordinary Machine 12:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the "picking and choosing" again, and I've also removed the exact Nielsen SoundScan sales figures as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To the editors who keep undoing my edits: please start discussing these issues as I have already requested several times rather than making radical changes to cited information day after day, without any explanation. Extraordinary Machine 21:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear, Extraordinary Machine,

I appreciate your work and support, but I believe the album sales for "Emotions", "MTV Unplugged", "Butterfly",& "Charmbracelet" are larger then they are displayed. I have gotten from a few reliable sources that "Mariah Carey" has just officialy sold 18 million. I know for a fact that "MTV Unplugged" has sold 10 million, too. And I know for a fact that "Butterfly" has sold 17 million because mariahcarey.co.za/sales.html pacifically went to her record label, management, and EMI for album sales. They had said that as of February 2003, it had sold 16.5 million. Unfortunately, they have changed her page to update it and it looks like they have used they're information from wikipedia because a lot of the album sales seem a little lower than last time. Mariah Carey Fan.com is not always accurate and they probably need to update their website. As of February 2003, "Charmbracelet" had sold 2.5 million, but when you look at the album sales from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_sales_and_certifications_for_Mariah_Carey, it adds up to over 4 million. That same source says that "#1s" also sold about 17 million.

That page, though it tries to be accurate, it is not. TEOM has shipped 1m in the EU, can't have sold more than it's shipped. Lots of the albums get a great contribution (millions) from China, which did not actually have a market till a few year ago (so forget the 1M for MC etc...) and 1M there is still a huge sum now (it's a smaller market than Italy) and anyway, China does not report sales at all. So, that's guesswork... The same source adds up to 18 M for Music Box though, not 26/28, and there's an interesting contribution asking where the remaining 10M could have been sold, as there are no markets left in that chart wher albums sell more than a few thousand, and only a handful of markets are left...
  • I don't know what you're talking about but I'm guessing you're from the Madonna albums discussion, who has also tried to claim how Madonna's sold these many albums and records while Mariah's label has inflated her sales. I believe Sony Records and Island when they say that Music Box has sold 28 million WW.
I'm glad that there's somebody discussing the issue rather than just blindly restoring their edits whenever removed, but here there is the same problem. For example, you cited http://talk.livedaily.com/archive/index.php/t-337057.html for your edit of the Butterfly worldwide sales figure (14 million to 16 million), but that website lists lower sales figures for Music Box and Daydream than this article and yet you didn't change those. Also, we can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Anyway, I've created a table at Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography/Sandbox which allows us to compare the figures that each different website lists. Extraordinary Machine 17:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sales figures in article accurate as of April 22, 2006

The sales figures (both U.S. and worldwide) in the article appear to be correct and supported by references as of this revision. I'm posting this here because a lot of anon editors regularly inflate some of the sales figures listed in the article, despite the presence of inline citations that were inserted to prevent this sort of low-level vandalism. Extraordinary Machine 22:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

For lack of a btter word (excuse my British English)... BOLLOCKS. Extraordinaty Machine, we all know you are a die hard mariah fan, you should not be allowed to write an article about her and you should not use fan sites and fans' posts on boards as data. Get a life!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.65.195 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential featured list?

I think that this list would be an excellent candidate to become a featured list... if only it wasn't subject to anon always changing the sales total. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Miss Madeline,

Go to Pulse Music Board.com's Music News section and look for soundscan numbers for June 10th. It posts some new SS numbers for Mariah

  • Greatest Hits - 835,000
  • #1's - 3.54 million
  • The Remixes - 236,000

Plus, I have info that Music Box has sold over 30 million copies worldwide and that Butterfly has sold 16.5 million (not 14 million). Their is also another source that says Charmbracelet has sold 4.5 million worldwide.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.20.219 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 June 2006.

The link PulseMusicBoard.com doesn't work for me. Madeline, I'd like it if we could make this a featured list (I've never helped write a featured list before :)), but I agree that it probably won't happen for as long as editors keep changing the sales totals without explanation, which will probably be a few years at least (WP:WIAFL says an FL should "not have ongoing edit wars"). :( Though I don't know if people inflating the sales figures could be considered edit warring or just low-level vandalism... Extraordinary Machine 21:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


The Guinness Book of Records has Music Box at 26M, which is straighjt from Columbia's own declaration.
  • Sony/Columbia/Island all say that Music Box has sold 28 million worldwide.


The IFPI states TEoM is 8.2M in mid-year, not 10... Those are the shipped copies, it's 6M in the US and 1M in the EU, it has not sold much anywhere else either, so, the 3M extra is out of the question. Still a big hit but does not need boosting, does it?
  • I do hope you know that Europe and the US aren't the only place to sell records. 10 million sold has officialy been claimed.
Not by Island!!! I think you are confusing the word official (friom Record Company) with 'reported on a fansite or in a magazine' They SHIPPED 7.7 in 2005. There have not been shipments outtside the US since. It went plat in Europe in december (1M) and sold about another million/1.5m in the rest of teh world. Being out of all teh world's charts since last year, one wonders how it could have sold more around the world (almost 3M) since Janaury than before. No way. This is clearly an inflated number. Island said 8.2 shipped, not 10. Fansites may say 10, but there's no mention from Island or the IFPI about 10. This will have to be readjusted when the IFPI publish their next list, and TEOM won't show as selling 2.3M since Jan, cos it hasn't.
  • You should know that fansites (at least most fansites) get they're info from record companies. Even the MC Archives.com get they're info from the record label. Billboard and the TODAY show got over 9 million from Island in April/May 2006. The record label (along with other websites and magazines and TV shows) have said over 10 million shipped/sold. And, once again, Europe and the US aren't the only place to sell records! TEOM has gottten at least 12 Platinum/Gold certifications from around the world! And I'm guessing you're from the Madonna albums discussion since you have already "claimed" that Madonna has sold/shipped over 10 million when her record label said she only got 8 million worldwide, yet you claim Mariah has only made 8m when her Island declared 10 million. LOL.172.129.202.203 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Invisible notes

I was just about to edit this page, but could not find my way around all the invisible notes in the article. And almost everyone of them threatened to block editors who changed the figures without citing sources (even I was discouraged from editing). I propose that the notices be cut down to only one (placed at the top). How can people call this a "free encyclopedia", when editors fear being blocked every time they edit this page? I am very troubled by the policing of this page. Yes, editors can be reminded of certain things, but they shouldn't see it everywhere they turn. Even heavily vandalised articles do not have unnecessary block threats. Orane (talk • cont.) 00:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that I went overboard with those. I think if we leave just one it should be placed directly under the "Albums" section, because many people click edit on that section only rather than opening the edit window on the entire article. Extraordinary Machine 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded harsh. I was just overwhelmed :). Orane (talk • cont.) 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

MIMI's official sales

  • The Emancipation Of Mimi has sold over 8 million worldwide. Her own label (Island/Def Jam records) said it on both their's and her's website. I have even more sources saying that it sold 10 million. Please fix that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LAUGH90 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Prove it with an official and reliable source? Reidlos 13:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

170 million albums???

The Univesal Music Group has said in December 2005: "The Emancipation Of Mimi has sold more than 8 million copies worldwide, bringing Mariah’s career sales over 160 million units worldwide."Source "Units" means that she has sold 160 million albums and singles, so how can she, according to mariahcareyfan.com, sold over 170 million albums. Here is an other OFFICIAL report from the UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, which states that The Emancipation Of Mimi has sold 8 million units [7], so I ask everbody again, where did she sell 2 million copies additionally. It's immpossiple, I mentioned it few post before. and if you just think logically, she has sold 8 million copies world wide at the end of 2005 and 5 million copies in the US means: 1,6:1 and she has sold about 750.000 copies in 2006 in the US -> 1.200.000 copies:750.000 copies = 9.200.000 copies sold so far and two reliable sources agree with me:

1. Billboard: "The tour comes in support of Carey's smash hit album "The Emancipation of Mimi," which has sold nine million copies worldwide, according to Island Def Jam." May 22, 2006 Source

2. "Five-time Grammy winner, Mariah Carey, is the top female artist in history, with record sales (albums+singles) exceeding 165 million. Carey's 17 #1 billboard hits are matched only by the king himself, Elvis Presley, and her 9x platinum album, "The Emancipation of Mimi," has sold over 9 million copies." February 16, 2007 Source

I'm not a Madonna fan and I love Mariah Carey, I just want a good article without exaggerated numbers. I don't think that we have to compete with the numbers of Madonna or Celine Dion. And please read this site: Mariah's record sales about 175-180 million Reidlos 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • People, please. I'm not trying to compete with Madonna and Celine Dion fans. Those sources you posted were from April 2006. The Emancipation Of Mimi album had sold over 9 million by May/June. The album sold over 10 million by late August. Source from her official record label.[8]

1. From the Guiness Book Of World Records:[9]

"Mariah Carey is the most successful female solo artist. She has sold a total of eighty-five million records in the US (sixty four million albums and twenty-one million singles) and over 215 million records worldwide, (165 million albums plus 50 million singles)."

2. UK MIX is a music fan message board that just round out and talks about record sales. Her OWN RECORD LABEL has said she has sold over 160 million albums worldwide so far. And she has sold 50 million singles.LAUGH90 23:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That source that says she sold over 215 million records is from the Guiness Book Of World Records. She's sold over 165 million albums and over 50 million singles. Total= 215 million records. That source that you have says 160 million units as in ALBUMS. If it ment RECORDS than it would have said that. It also said TEOM has sold 8 million units. That doesnt mean albums AND singles does it? LAUGH90 04:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Here you are:

1. After closing out the 90's as the undisputed biggest-selling female recording artist of the decade - in excess of 150 million albums and singles have been sold worldwide - singer / songwriter / producer Mariah Carey unleashes Glitter, her eagerly awaited Virgin Records debut and first musical offering of the new millennium. -> Mariah Carey's official site biography during the promotion of 'Glitter'. So I ask you, how can she sell about 70 million records in this decade, do you really think she has sold 10 million albums and singles averagely every year?

2. With worldwide album and singles sales totaling well over 150 million records, Mariah is arguably the best-selling female artist in pop music history. 'The Remixes' press release!!! Her record company stated this!

150-160 million records
15 million record - The Emancipation of Mimi and its singles
5 million - The Greatest Hits (because of it's successful re-release in the UK, France and US catalogue sales); The Remixes; Merry Christmas

... makes 170-180 million RECORDS!!! Reidlos 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Those sources say WELL OVER 150 million records worldwide. In 2003, Sony/Columbia said she had sold over 185 million records worldwide. She was also at Virgin and had been signed to Island for nearly two years at the time. I dont think they gave all her album sales away to her other labels, do you? And mariahjournal.com did not get it's info on WW sales from all countries. Their are more than 26 countries worldwide and shipments were definately bigger.

Here's a good source:

  • Mariah Carey- 18 million
  • Emotions- 13.5 million
  • Merry Christmas- 12.5 million
  • Daydream- 21.5 million
  • Butterfly- 15 million
  • #1's- 15 million
  • Rainbow- 9.5 million
  • Glitter- 4 million
  • Greatest Hits- not announced at the time.


With shattering vocals, Mariah Carey has sold in excess of 120 million albums worldwide since her chart debut in 1990. The best-selling female performer of the 1990s, she rose to superstardom on the strength of her stunning five-octave voice, and has moved easily from glossy ballads to hip-hop-inspired dance-pop. Sony Music Australia - 2005 Sony Music would only list figures for albums released under their label, so 'Glitter', 'Charmbracelet' and 'The Emancipation of Mimi' are excluded. Sony album sales: 123-125 million (which includes another 1 million of 'Greatest Hits' (because of it's successful re-release in the UK, France and US catalogue sales) as well as 0.5 million worldwide for 'The Remixes' and 0.5 from her Merry Chrristmas album.)

Means: 123-125 million albums + 16 million albums (The Emancipation of Mimi, Glitter, Charmbracelet) + 45 million singles = over 185 million records.

  • Honestly, I believe she sold over 160 million albums. Her record label has said many times over 160 million albums and they've even said it on TV (on TV shows like The Insider, E! and Forbes magazine) and my newspaper. Another bonus is thatwhen they have press releases for her album TEOM, they say it sold over 8 or 9 million units (now it's 10 million), bringing her sales to over 160 million units to date. If they ment records, they would have said over 160 million records and something like 110 million albums but they didn't. And according to Sony/Columbia, she sold over 50 million singles along with the 160 million albums. So that equals over 210 million records.
  • Another thing, that press release that said she sold just 120 million albums was from her Greatest Hits album. It says 2005, but the album was released in 2001. So more than likely, that was info they used from mid to late 2001.TVSET 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And you really think she has sold just with 3 albums about 40 million units? C'MON! The Emancipation of Mimi, The Remixes and Charmbracelet are about 15 million albums, plus about 5 million albums from her rerelease of Greatest Hits and Merry Christmas... Means: She has sold at most 140-145 million albums! So what!Reidlos 09:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I guess I agree, but here is the newsletter from Universal and Sony that says Daydream sold over 24 million. [10]72.94.46.100 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does not sound believable, because... They say that Raibow has sold 6,8 million albums??? (Posted: 5/10/2002) but... Canoe (Canada's equivalent to Billboard) reported in March 2000: "Carey is doing a nine-date North American tour -- her first roadtrip in seven years -- in support of her latest album, Rainbow. Released last fall, it has sold seven-million copies worldwide and 300,000 copies in Canada." Reidlos 23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect the site?

So much people are changing her worldwide albums sales without discussing or giving reliable sources. They inflate the numbers! Maybe a semi-protection of the site would help?Reidlos 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Incoherence

Music Box : Total US sales : 7.9 millions, RIAA certification : diamond, does RIAA invent the 2 100 000 missing records ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.84.142.16 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

  • The album has sold about 8 million with Soundscan and BMG record club sales. That does not include sales for other record clubs like Columbia.72.94.46.100 22:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Emotions was certified 4x Platinum in September 1993.[11]LAUGH90 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


MARIAH CAREY'S REAL ALBUM SALES

  • Before of the release date of her album Glitter, Virgin records (her official record label at that time) stated that she has sold 150 million albums and singles worldwide, which makes sense because her album sales were at 120 million units and her single sales at 30-35 million units.

MARIAH CAREY has sold more than 3 million records in Canada and 150 million albums and singles worldwide. Tuesday, June 12, 2001

  • And also Sony Music says before the release of her Greatest Hits album that she has sold 120 million records, Sony Music would only list figures for albums released under their label, so 'Glitter', 'Charmbracelet' and 'The Emancipation of Mimi' are excluded.

With shattering vocals, Mariah Carey has sold in excess of 120 million albums worldwide since her chart debut in 1990.

  • Mariah Carey's official site biography said during the promotion of 'Glitter', that she has sold 150 million albums and singles:

After closing out the 90's as the undisputed biggest-selling female recording artist of the decade - in excess of 150 million albums and singles have been sold worldwide - singer / songwriter / producer Mariah Carey unleashes Glitter, her eagerly awaited Virgin Records debut and first musical offering of the new millennium.

Conclusion: I think we all agree with that:

  • 'The Emancipation of Mimi' sold 10 million albums

So I ask all of you: Two of her official record labels and her official biography says that she has sold 120 million albums in the 90's (13,5+8+6,5+30+12+20+10+15+8,5 million albums=123,5 million), plus 13 million albums from 'The Emancipation of Mimi' and 'Charmbracelet', brings her to 136.5. How can Glitter and The Remixes sell over 10, 20, 30, 40 million albums? So my albums sale figure and that of [Mariah Journal http://www.mariahjournal.com/infozone/charts/albums/worldwide/index.shtml] is more reliable than every other figure which states that she has sold 160, 170 or 180 million albums!

Thank you for reading this! Reidlos 12:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Best Selling Albums Worldwide Missing Mariah!

I noticed many of Mariah's albums haven't been included in the List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide like Mariah Carey, Merry Christmas, and Butterfly which all state sold over 15 million copies each. Does anyone know why? Puckeylut 04:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't worry.... just a mistake! i'll fix it.
    • They keep removing Daydream from the best selling albums list. Is there no credible sources for the 25 million reported sales? Puckeylut (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


--Mysterious Spy 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Overcertified

Without the sales figures from Columbia House for Music Box and the sales figures from Columbia House and BMG for Butterfly, how do we know they're actually overcertified? I doubt a record company will ship out 4 million copies of cds only to go unsold. It costs money to do that and we all know record companies are greedy.ThisIsMyName 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • i totally agree!! music box's sales are well over 10 million in the US alone since it has been certified diamond (10 times platinum). and all her other albums sales are where RIAA says that they are in the US...

--Mysterious Spy 19:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


WHOSE DELETING THE DATA ?????????

where did the data went ? where is the information of the rest of the albums ??? who deletes them ??????? (Taksam 20:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

OMG!! Stop This NOW!!!

Stop puting low sales for mariah album!1 whoever does this must stop!!! all this sources agree to one thing; that mariah's album have sold:

  • mariah carey: 18 million
  • emotions:12,5 million
  • mtv unplugged: 9-10 million
  • music box: 30 million
  • merry christmas: 16 million
  • Butterfly: 15 million
  • #1's: 17 million
  • Rainbow: 10 million
  • Glitter: 3,5 million
  • Greatest Hits: 4,5 million
  • Charmbarcelet: 4,5 million
  • The Remixes: 1 million
  • The Emancipation Of Mimi: 10 million


Please STOP!!! This is getting very annoying for everyone cant you understand??!!

--Mysterious Spy 20:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct Worldwide Sales

  • Sales for Mariah, Madonna, Whitney and Celine have been inflated! I put the correct sources there for this discography and intend to for the rest. Please stop changing them! MariahJournal.com is the truth.96.227.94.146 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't rely on MariahDailyJournal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.42.145 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)



  • I'm not the one who's editing her albums sales, all I'm saying that she sold more than 160 M album today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.182.101 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And now for something completely different: width of the table

Hi, I don't know if anyone cares but on small screens (with a width of less than 1024 px) the table intersects with the infobox. I believe that neither the infobox nor the table should be removed nor can be made smaller but a few "plain text" sentences before the table might also help to avoid that problem. Unfortunately, I don't know what should be written there. ;-) Does anyone have any idea? — Tauriel-1 (☎) 07:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

certifications

nevermind - sorry I misread one of the comments so I removed my post. but seriously we should just use certifications for all of the artists. or at least only official record label statements/billboard. cos there's so much inflation going on for mariah/celine/whitney!Bluesagent (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of references

I see there's been a lot of discussion on this page about sourcing, which is good, but in the current form it's still hard to actually tell how reliable information is. Most of the links go to fan sites, which aren't necessarily suitable sources. I realise that in many cases those sites list information from more reliable sources (e.g. RIAA, SoundScan, Billboard, UWC), but there's no way of telling that from the references. Would be good to restructure them to more accurately reflect their contents -- e.g. for the stuff from the MariahDaily InfoZone pages, have references that say "Billboard Magazine Date x quoted by MariahDaily" (that's not the exact format, but you get the general idea). Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

There's a footnote to the tables which reads as follows: "These albums are according the RIAA certification standard undercertified." This is problematic for a number of reasons:

  • Even taken on face value, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL.
  • Despite referring to 'albums', only one album carries this footnote as far as I can see (The Remixes).
  • No explanation is offered as to what part of the standard is being referred to.
  • The sentence implies that the albums in question would be entitled to certification, and doesn't mention that certification only occurs if the record company submits a request for it.
  • If the SoundScan sales figure of 250,000 copies is correct, then The Remixes wouldn't be able to earn a gold certification anyway. Certifications are for shipments, not sales, but it seems unlikely that this late career compilation would have shipped in massive quantities (in entirely POV language, it was a cash-in).

So I'm planning to remove the sentence unless someone comes up with a good, sourced reason. Gusworld (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No objection raised, so I've done this. Gusworld (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Studio versus live etc.

I see that someone's just changed the categorisation of Glitter from studio album to soundtrack, but left it in the studio section. How to count albums seems to be an ongoing source of conflict in the MC community.

In this article I can't see the point of having separate sub-categories for live, soundtrack, studio, holiday and compilation albums when only two of those categories have more than one entry, and only one has more than two entries. I suspect it'd be easier (and less edit-war inducing) to list the albums in strict chronological order with a categorisation, rather than arguing over the correct way to count the studio albums. Gusworld (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate calculation of Music Box

If Mariah's album "Music Box" has sold a total of 30 million albums, why is it then that Madonna's "The Immaculate Collection" (21 million copies) is no.30 on the All-time United World Album Chart and Mariah's Music Box is at No.47 on the same chart? [24] I think you will find that the figures shown are inaccurate and are a gross exaggeration as the European sales have been added twice (European - 7 million, then Spain, UK etc, added again). This brings the album down to 20 million copies which explains the lower positioning on the UWC. JWAD (talk) PS just because a PR or record company statement claims it is 30 million doesn't mean it accurate!

Just because United World Album chart says that Madonna has sold more doesn't mean it's accurate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.190.172 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Total sales

This is replete with problems: the lists of #1s in different countries are irrelevant in this context, the music club figures are unsourced, and the numbers don't add up. I'm planning to rewrite this as text (with chart stuff in a separate section). Gusworld (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good bit of cleanup done

I've formatted all the references (not that too many were present), reformatted all the albums to have consistent tables, tidied the peak data, and made sure that the tables match the only source which has actually been provided on this page for virtually every album -- the Mariah Daily summation. While that may well not be the last word on the subject, it is a citable source whose methodology is fairly transparent.

Anyone changing sales figures for any album needs to provide a precise reference, or it is going to get reverted. No reference, no alteration. Note that original research isn't allowed -- for this kind of information, precise sources are needed. Changing a number and leaving the old reference (a common practice with the E=MC2 numbers) won't help either. If you want new data, you need new reliable sources -- not blog or forum posts.

Aside from the problems keeping these numbers referenced, citations are needed for the end of year positions (one of the reasons I separated that into years) and for the claimed weeks on chart for older albums.

On another note, it still seems to me that the division of this discography into categories (studio, live, remix etc.) is pretty non-functional, and that it would work better and look better as a single list with each album classified. As I've noted before, only one of the breakout categories has more than one entry, and the table structure would allow a full chronological list with each album classified just as easily. I'll make this change in about a week unless someone raises objections here. Gusworld (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Decorative flag icons need to go per WP:FLAGS, especially since they are there in place of text. - eo (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'll take them out when I make the table changes (assuming nobody raises an objection to those), saves editing in multiple tables. Gusworld (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I see someone's already done it. Gusworld (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, when I go ahead with the table consolidation, I'm going to remove the tribute albums if there's no objections -- this is an MC discography, and none of the albums are noteworthy in their own right or feature notable performers. Gusworld (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

E= MC 2 sales

There are a lot of anonymous IPs currently editing the sales figures for this album. This is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the figures usually don't match the sum of the first and second week sales figures from the two cited references, so they're flat-out wrong.

Second, it seems to me that adding together information in this way comprises original research, which is a no-no. That policy is very clear about not joining information together from different sources to reach a conclusion: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research."

In this context, you can't add together separate weekly sales data to advance a position (a claimed sales total). You need a source that explicitly mentions that total. This may not be a problem if (for instance) Billboard publishes an article and mentions sales to date, but that's unlikely to happen for the chart span of this album -- so other sources are going to be needed. (The same reasoning also applies to adding together United World Chart figures.) Gusworld (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In line with that reasoning, I've taken out the Hits Daily Double reference for the time being (as a constantly changing chart it's not a useful long-term reference anyway). Gusworld (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Added the Billboard reference for second week sales. While I still maintain that it's an OR violation to add together sales figures, I've put in the total from the first two weeks for the time being as otherwise there'll be endless attempts to change it (the article suffers enough from vandalism as it is). Gusworld (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised format

As flagged above a week ago, I've combined the discography into a single chronological table and removed the tribute albums. I'm open to discussion on this, though discussion on this article so far seems lacking compared to the number of unsourced edits that are made to the sales figures. Gusworld (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on US figures

Given that there's a separate article for listing her certifications, I'm wondering what the justification is for having Carey's US sales and US certifications listed in this article, but not mentioning any other certifications. The approach is very inconsistent; chart details for nine countries are listed, but sales and certs are only broken out for the US. To my mind, the certification column could certainly be removed, and quite possibly the US sales figures as well -- though I grant that these are available to a higher level of accuracy than in most other markets, unlike certifications. I know Carey's sales in the US account for the bulk of her numbers, particularly in recent years, but that in itself isn't a justification for taking a US-centric approach. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This issue has taken on a bit more prominence, as there's been differences of opinion over whether there should be a 'weeks on chart' column attached as well. My own view is that there's actually too much information here as it is, and that lots of it is too US-centric. I think there's two ways the article could move forward:

(a) Remove all the sales and certifications columns, and simply leave the chart positions. This would lead to less vandalism (sales figures on this article are changed daily to unsourced numbers) and make the article less prone to sourcing disputes. The removed data is reproduced in each album's own entry or in the article on MC certifications, which seems more appropriate. I'd personally favour this approach.

(b) Merge the tabular data from the MC certifications article into this one, so it maintained sales and cert data for the US, but also included (properly sourced) information for other reasons, to reduce the US bias in the listing.

Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TEOM DID ship over 10 million worldwide

  • I sent a letter to Island Def Jam about TEOM selling nine or ten million worldwide. When I got it back, they said that the album did shp over 10 million worldwide. Another four million was shipped outside of the U.S. Mariah Daily didn't include all the sales from Middle Eastern, nore every part of Europe and Africa, where the album sold more.LAUGH90 (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


Her Sales as of June 24, 2008

I notice that somebody (most probably overzealous fans) are not using citations or sources from MariahDailyJournal or any sources at all. I think this page should be put on protection. Caribbean1 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fansites being used as sources

I don't think it's appropriate for fansites to be used as sources for statements regarding sales figures and the like. They're prone to bias and so aren't reliable sources. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Fansites are not reliable in any way. They give misleading information to readers. Anyone can change album or single single sales on fansites, and they should not be relied upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickDion22 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's been no further comment (much less a compelling explanation for the use of fansites as sources), so I've removed all data referenced by fansites. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone To Hold

Is NOT a Mariah Carey song; just because she does backing vocals - she does not do any solos and she is not credited as a featured artist. Nathan86 (talk) 08:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Promo releases

Irresistible was not a promo release, it was an album cut that charted from airplay; "My Saving Grace" was not a promo, it was the B-Side of "Fly Like A Bird"; and i KNOW "X-Girlfriend", "Bliss" and "After Tonight" were NOT released as promos. Nathan86 (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected due to edit warring. Tan | 39 23:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

well, it's been locked with "Someone to hold" listed on there as a Mariah Carey single (which it is NOT, she only does bvs and is NOT credited as a featured artist); so can someone with Administrator privileges please remove it? Nathan86 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Page fixed with accurate sales figures

  • The accurate sales figures are the ones I used for the current sales for the discography. They come directly from Sony/Columbia, Universal, Billboard, and Island Def Jam. Please do not change them, or I'll have to get the heads of Wikipedia on this.LAUGH90 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What sources are considered reliable?

I would like to solicit opinions from as many editors as possible as to what sites are considered reliable sources as described by Wikipedia policies WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS for the purposes of reporting sales figures and gold/platinum/diamond certifications. To put this discussion in context, I quote from WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 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. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. To discuss the reliability of particular sources, see the reliable sources noticeboard.

I would expect that most of all of the following would be considered reliable by most:

  • Press releases by record labels (such as Sony Music)
  • Articles from mainstream media (Such as Rueters)
  • Articles by reputable industry publications (such as Billboard Magazine or Rolling Stone)
  • Information published by industry tracking groups, such as RIAA.

Unfortunately, these sources do not consistently release up-to-date latest sales figures to the public, so relying solely on such sources may lead to the retention of some aged figures. Although not ideal, this is preferable to including mre recent, yet unverifiable information from other sources.

On the other end of the spectrum, I hope we can all agree that unchecked end-user contributed sites such as YouTube or any number of blog sites would not be considered reliable sources. I think we can also agree that updating sales figures without providing a reliable source is also unacceptable.

Recently, many sales figures have been updated and these updates were accompanied by sources whose reliability is apparently in dispute. Some of these include:

So the question, is which of these (and other) sites meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Hopefully, with some discussion, we can get closer to a consensus. Please add your comments below. Be sure to specifically identify which sources you consider reliable or unreliable, and state your reasons why. Please be objective an civil.

-- Tcncv (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments and discussion below

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic website that millions of people view to seek reputable information. Websites like MariahDaily.com and others like it, are extremely biased in nature and are in wide favor of Mariah Carey. The site itself mentions her first name. The site doesn't give any primary or secondary sources, but asserts that their sales are "right". Fan websites and other forms of unreliable sites should NOT be used as sources. There are billions of articles from thousands of news and media sources on the internet that could be used in exchange. I also find it absolutely absurd that people are ignorant enough to give incorrect information and change the sales of Mariah's albums, while keeping the source that clearly states otherwise. Users who keep reverting and vandalising this article as well as adding sources and websites that are not neutral in nature at all should have their revisions temporarily halted. That is, until they understand that vandalising articles with false information and adding biased wesbites is wrong and not the standard of Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. BalticPat22Pat 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Mariah Daily.com used reliable sources(Sony/Columibia, Universal, and Billboard), not websites using info from wikipedia from 2005/2006. I actually used factual sources and known sales figures from Billboard and the record labels to date. I really wish more people would see this. BalticPat22, maybe you should read the bottom of the page.LAUGH90 (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
How exactly have you used sales figures from billboard? the only citations you have provided are from Mariah Daily, which is a fansite; and hence clearly biased towards Mariah, and therefore not a reliable source. Nathan86 (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't really think http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687 is a really reliable source, either... they list Music Box as having sold 32 million when even Mariah Daily "only" lists is as having sold 25.5 million; and Butterfly selling 15.5million vs MD claiming 10 million Nathan86 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As kind an exercise, I took a look at some off the cases where the mariahdaily figures exceeded the other sources, thinking that if the mariahdaily source could be identified, it could be converted to an acceptable Wikipedia source. The first figure was Mariah Carey album sales of 13,500,000. However, the only reference I could find on that pages was a 12,000,000 figure from Sony Music Japan. Next I looked at the 6,500,000 figure for MTV Unplugged (entered as 6,000,000 by LAUGH90). The same Sony Music Japan reference listed 7 million, but also "(Universal's Retrospective gave 6.5 million in '02)". No further reference to "Retrospective" exists on the page. Third, I looked at the 12,000,000 figure for Merry Christmas. The closest figure I could find in the reference list was 11,000,000 (again from Sony Music Japan). Although it appears that the mariahdaily site has made an honest attempt at providing accurate figures, I'm oh-for-three at tracking down the sources. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with MariahDaily is that if we hypothetically do accept information from that website, then that will open the flood gates to other users wanting to utilize othef fan sites that may be even more biased than MariahDaily. We cannot accept one fansite and not be cognizant enough to realize that it will provide a massive undertaking for users to correct and control the potential massive influx of people using other fansites. On the other hand, I do not agree with Undercover.com.au. The author who wrote 32 million copies sold for Music Box must be totally deluded. That website though, is being used for countless Mariah articles, including the article of the "best selling albums of all time." Music Box has NOT sold 32 million copies, I can assure you. The problem becomes weeding out sites that are openly biased, like MariahDaily and others that given insanely inflated figures like Undercover. BalticPat22Pat 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody has come to the defense of the NationMaster and 8notes sites, so it sounds like those have been eliminated as acceptable sources. MariahDaily appears to have some internal consistency problems (described two paragraphs above), and differences between the MariahDaily and Undercover figures leads me to question the reliability of both. Using the definitions in WP:PSTS MariahDaily appears clearly to be a tertiary source, relying one news reports (secondary sources) who in turn obtain information from the industry tracking organizations (primary source). After taking a closer look at undercover.com.au, I've concluded that that site is a one-man (Paul Cashmere) or small-group operation that gathers, relays, and comments on industry news. That would also qualify as a tertiary source. Since both sites are fan oriented, they may be less than strict in the sources thay use in their own articles.
I do not believe we are in a position to select one tertiary source over another where they disagree, so I think it would be better to rely only on primary and secondary sources when they are available (even if dated). If no primary or secondary sources are available, I think we (only then) could include a tertiary sourced figure, but that figure should be tagged with a {{fact}} template (aka "citation needed") indicating that the figure is unconfirmed. I'm also going to solicit opinions from the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've had this page watchlisted for some time, even though I've never edited it. Why don't y'all take a look at the sources used in the discographies listed at WP:Featured lists? They get been vetted at each discography FLC nomination, and, as a writer of two discog FLs, and the FL director, I don't think you'll find much better. WP:DISCOG has some reliable sources listed someplace, and you should take a look at User:Kww/goodcharts too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the references. I took a look at a sampling of articles in WP:Featured lists#Discographies. Many of the articles include certifications, but not sales figures. I suspect that this may be due to the lack of acceptable sources that satisfy the WP:SOURCES standard as interpreted by those who have created or reviewed these articles. For those articles that do have sales figures, the sources appear all to be high quality reputable sources. None that I saw used any "one-man-band" sites, such as Undercover, or single artist focus (fan or promotional) site, such as MariahDaily.
The edit war continues, and I don't think it will end unless a consensus can be reached on what sources are acceptable and hold to it. I propose that we limit the Mariah Carey discography sources to those comparable to the sources are used in the featured list - discography articles. This would necessitate removing both MariahDaily and Undercover as sources in favor of articles in mainstream media, and recognized authoritative industry organizations and publications such as RIAA and Billboard. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • At any rate can someone please permanently semiprotect the page? there's way too much vandalism from lambs/stans inventing chart positions and ridiculous sales figures...Nathan86 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not in favor of a protect at this time, as I believe there is an honest (although somewhat contentious) disagreement on acceptable sources. A semiprotect would limit the editors to a subset who still are not in agreement. -- Tcncv (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is absolutely ridiculous. These people who are basically coming up with sales figures out of their butt are NOT being honest nor are they giving "good faith edits." These Mariah fanatics aren't even contributing to the discussion and are just frolicking around in the own fantasy world reverting and changing sales figures in whichever way they choose. I am in strong favor of a semiprotective page. Many other articles on Wikipedia that have substantial vandalism have their pages semiprotected; and those people who vandalise aren't even half as deluded as some of these users. We MUST keep in perspective that this is supposed to be a reputable online encyclopedia, NOT a haven for vandalisers and fanatic lunatics. BalticPat22Pat 15:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that we try to follow the guidelines of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ETIQ. Until we define and obtain a consensus on acceptable sources, I do not think it productive to spend time name-calling those whose sources we do not agree with. You are free to request a semi-protect – the final call will be up to the administrator. Now, what are your recommendations on acceptable sources? Please be specific so that we (and others) can discuss and vote on your recommendations. -- Tcncv (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


But 90% of these edits don't even cite a source -- they just leave a reference as it is but bump up the sales figure about 3 million units. And we need citation points for Ballads sales figures and to verify the existence of MC3 but the psycho lamb/stand keep removing the [citation needed]s. Semiprotecting should be used as it will only block the unregistered crazy fans. Nathan86 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no need for sarcastic language, tcncv. Obviously, many people have strong opinions about what constitutes reliable sources. I however, believe that sources stating sales figures need to come from wesbites that have a history of being reliable and trustworthy without any preconceived biases. Articles from official musical organizations like Billboard Magazine, RIAA, and IFPI as well as reputable news sites such as The New York Times, CNN, and BBC should be the types of sites to utilize. What should also be taken into account is the date of the article or information. Let's say that a news article was referencing Daydream which was released in 1995, and they gave out a worldwide sales figure in 1999. That wouldn't be a very updated figure to put in, because it's been a decade since 1999 and potentially millions of additional albums could have been sold in that time frame. That said, I also agree with Nathan86. Extreme users inflate sales figures to numbers which are absurd, because there is a [citation needed] citation next to it and they think that they put any figure they want because it's not yet verified. There needs to be something in place to halt this fanatic behavior. BalticPat22Pat 00:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to be sarcastic, I just prefer to avoid name calling. However, now that I look at recent edits, I see your point. I had stopped following the day-to-day edits while trying to encourage discussion here on the talk page. When I last looked, there was only one prominent IP that was pushing a different set of figures and source (NationMaster, which has now been discounted). I now see that the majority of anonymous edits are unsourced changes. I submitted a request to have the page protected here. (You can add requests too, either directly or using tools such as WP:Twinkle.)
Back to the main topic: I agree with you (and Nathan86) that we need to set the bar high on what is considered an acceptable source. Once we define and agree on that (and get other editors to agree also), we will be on track to get the article back up to a quality standards. As you point out, some of the well-sourced information is dated, but to again quote WP:RS, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so as I interpret that statement, dated is preferable to unverifiable.
So to get this job done, I believe we need (1) to propose a definition what we consider acceptable sources, and what we don't (including specific examples), (2) to demonstrate a consensus through discussion and/or a vote, (3) to bring the article in line with the agreed upon criteria, and (4) to patrol for unsourced or poorly sourced changes that do not meet this criteria. It's my intention to act as a facilitator, not to dictate any course of action. So who wants to make the proposal? -- Tcncv (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just saw that the request to semi-protect this page has been denied, due to the lack of "recent activity." If the page cannot be protected, then I guess we'll have to watch and revert any vandalism that comes along. In the mean time, I think we should let editors know if they would like to participate in creating a consensus to what an acceptable source is as well as making a definition and having a vote or general agreement. To me, the cornerstones of this definiton should be neutrality and verifiability. WP:NPOV should be a guideline to what constitutes neutrality. Websites like Undercover.au, and MariahDaily.com are not neutral in any way because they present information without sources and the "facts" that they give are totally the opposite of what many, many other reliable sources give for sales. Which brings me to my second point. I propose a ban on these two wesbites (MariahDaily and other like it and Undercover.au) on the grounds of opinionated, unverifiable, and fan-based statements. I will go a step further. Any fan-based website created by people who use unofficial sources and those which present a lack of reliability should be banned from this page. In conclusion, for the definition of acceptable sources, I propose banning biased sources and only using references that have a history of being reliable (Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, etc). I also propose using sources that are peer reviewed. Hopefully that will help. BalticPat22Pat 17:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Typical, the one day the crazies actually don't vandalise the article... Request it again. it's been vandalised AGAIN. and they're not easy to undo because then other users come and add more info without reverting the vandalism....Nathan86 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


I agree with nearly all of your points. I'm not sure I would classify Undercover.au and MariahDaily.com as "completely biased", but do agree that they fail to satisfy criteria for reliable sources. As for peer reviewed sources, I agree as long as it's clear that we are talking about professionally peer-reviewed sources and not a user-based voting system as is used by Discogs.
I've been Looking in the history for a reasonably stable set of figures backed up by what appear to be good sources. One such possibility is this version from 2 January. The sources referenced from the discography sales figures include the following.
There is one MariahDaily reference, but it is a magazine article extract, so perhaps it can be allowed. A few figures still lack sources, but I think it is preferable to have a "citation needed" tag than to have a misleading indication that the figure is confirmed. If the above sources meet with general approval, I suggest using the 2 January version as a base version for bringing the article back to a good standing. Do you think we ready to propose a statement of consensus? -- Tcncv (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem with that is the crazy fans just remove them....that's what they keep doing with the Ballads sales and MC3 "citation needed" tags. Nathan86 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a January 2 version on the historical edits. The last revision goes from December 31st and the next one is January 3rd. Are you talking about the January 3rd revision? If so, then I agree. All of the sources on that date seem right. So yes, I agree with setting that date as a base version so we can at least have this article to relatively where it should be. BalticPat22Pat 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I had local time enabled. UTC timestamp is 04:50, 3 January 2009 – the last of a series of edits by Nathan86. -- Tcncv (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Statement Of Consensus

Here's a draft.

To maintain compliance with official English Wikipedia policy for Verifiability and guidelines for Reliable Sources,

  • Changes or additions to factual information, including sales figures, chart positions, and certifications shall not be made without providing a reliable source which can be used to verify the new information.
  • Reliable sources include press releases and articles from official musical organizations like Billboard Magazine, RIAA, and IFPI; reputable news sites such as The New York Times, CNN, and BBC; and peer-reviewed sources consistent with the Reliable sources section of the Verifiability policy. Some examples of acceptable sources include (but are not limited to):
    • Sony Music Corporation (www.sonymusic.com) - An industry primary source for sales information
    • Rueters (www.reuters.com) - Mainstream new media
    • Billboard Magazine (billboard.com) - A recognized industry publication and primary source for chart information
    • Recording Industry Association of America (riaa.com) - A recognized industry tracking group and primary source for certification information
  • Sources not considered reliable include most web sites that are not in the above categories such as fan oriented sites and sites with unknown or unverifiable sources. Specifically, unacceptable sources include (but are not limited to):
    • MariahDaily (www.mariahdaily.com) - A fan oriented site. Demonstrated inconsistencies between figures and stated sources.
    • Undercover (www.undercover.com) - Sources unknown. Apparently run by single operator or small group.
    • NationMaster (www.nationmaster.com) - Sources unknown. Suspected of sourcing information from an earlier revision of Wikipedia.
    • 8Notes (www.8notes.com) - Sources unknown. No established reputation.
    • mariahcarey.co.za - Uses Wikipedia as a source, making it unsuitable for use as a source in Wikipedia.
  • Verifiable information from reliable sources is always preferred over information from other sources, even if the latter information is more recent.
  • If a reliable source cannot be found, other credible information may be used but should be tagged with a {{fact}} template (displayed as [citation needed]). That tag should remain until a reputable source is found.
  • Other examples of acceptable sources include sources used by the discography articles that are members of WP:Featured lists#Discographies and sources specifically identified on the WP:WikiProject Discographies/style page.

Please review, comment, or make improvements (such as adding more examples) directly if you see a need. If you make changes directly, please use strikeout and italics to highlight changes. Once we are all satisfied, we can vote to call it a consensus.

-- Tcncv (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I think you hit the nail on the head, here. The only thing that I think should be added to the unnaccepted sources should be any unverified fansites that specifically show a clear ad visible bias toward the respective artist. That way, users cannot get through the loophole and add other fansites besides MariahDaily.com. If that is alright with everyone, I think that should be added also. BalticPat22Pat 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead and edit the above directly to add whatever you think the above statement needs. -- Tcncv (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing I was considering adding to the proposal, is policy for what to do when no reliable source exists for a sales figure. Should we add the "best credible value" from and unverified source (with a {{fact}} tag), or should there be no value at all? -- Tcncv (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that if a reliable source cannot be found, then there should be a [citation needed] tag on that sales figure. That is, until a reputable source can be found. BalticPat22Pat 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a statement above on the use of [citation needed]. If there are no other comments, I'd like to request all those participating or watching this to state whether you agree with the above statement, as I have done below. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, however this won't stop the crazy fans grossly inflating the sales figues, adding a "+" at the end (???) and revoving the "citation needed" tag as they do every day with the Ballads sales figures....we do need this page semiprotected.Nathan86 (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree -- Tcncv (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. User:BalticPat22Pat 00:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mariah_Carey_albums_discography/Archive_2&oldid=1127487388"