Talk:Janet Jackson/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112080712/http://www.naacpimageawards.net/42/nominees-and-honorees/motion-picture/ to http://www.naacpimageawards.net/42/nominees-and-honorees/motion-picture/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Logic. Grammar.
This bit is illogical (ie the logic is wrong);
 * He adds that while her voice is suitable for studio recording, it doesn't translate well to stage because despite having "great songs, incredible dancing, and her star like presence, the live show is still magnificent. But the voice is not the star."[245]

I tried to check the source, but according to Google (with my ability) that sentence is not in the book (nor is Janet). So (assuming there is some ok-source), how about;
 * He adds that while her voice is suitable for studio recording, it doesn't translate well to stage because despite having "great songs, incredible dancing, and [a] star like presence… the voice is not the star."[245]

MBG02 (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nipple flash
The section on her Super Bowl appearance and the famous nipple flash says "It is regarded as one of the most controversial television events in history". Uh, really? I can think of quite a few television moments and events that have been more controversial - both at the immediate moment and long-term. The fact that they may not have generated a hundred million tweets or google searches, because they happened before social media was a big thing, is of no importance. That line is a blatantly US-centric and showbiz-centric statement - and of course, quite unsourced! ;) 195.67.149.169 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So fix it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo edit war
ENOUGH with the edit warring of which photo is better. Talk it out here, THEN we can proceed IF there is a consensus of which photo is worthy of being the infobox photo (and meets the photo rules of no copyrights, etc.) For now, the current photo stays. I have no opinion in the matter, simply tired of this edit war. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That 2015 picture should be there. Theoneandonlyjjj (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why you think that this should be the case? Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you like the 2011 picture Theoneandonlyjjj (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not a case of which picture I like more or for that case which you like more, please read PPOV about that. As requested by User:Zinnober9 above there should be a discussion about which is the most representative picture that is usable according to the guidelines, before the picture that currently is on the page (2002 version) should be changed. This instead of starting an edit war as you are currently doing.
 * It's a big article, and both pictures could appear somewhere in it. Bickering and edit warring.  Reminds me of the Lilliput and Blefuscu war over which end  of the egg should be cracked.  Big endian vs. Small endian.  Does not have to be a Zero sum game.  So agree on placement and stop it!  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

has now been blocked indefinitely for block evasion. William Avery (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Janet Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201231450/http://blogcritics.org/music-dvd-review-janet-jackson-live/comment-page-1/ to http://blogcritics.org/music-dvd-review-janet-jackson-live/comment-page-1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111215130847/http://newsroom.mtv.com/2010/09/10/lady-gaga-madonna-janet-jackson-vma-video/ to http://newsroom.mtv.com/2010/09/10/lady-gaga-madonna-janet-jackson-vma-video/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Janet Jackson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Janet Jackson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead
First sentence of the second paragraph: "The ninth and youngest child of the Jackson family..." She is the tenth, not ninth. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:6077:2DBD:89D:35B7 (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * What source supports this? Everything here says she's ninth on nine. —C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See: Jackson family. Also Janet Jackson: "Janet Jackson was born on May 16, 1966 in Gary, Indiana, the youngest of ten children..." Both entries are properly sourced. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:D46C:7D49:619F:8E84 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"Janet Jackson's New Album" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Janet Jackson&. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  04:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

How many millions sold? Revisiting the math
Recently, the dispute about Jackson's total sales figure has returned. The disputed numbers are 100 million and 180 million. Previously, we had extensive discussions about this issue several times, regarding the difference between 100 and 160 million.
 * 2015–2017: Talk:Janet_Jackson/Archive_3.
 * 2018: Talk:Janet_Jackson/Archive_3.

In April 2008 when the article was listed as a WP:Good article, the number was 100 million. Same in August 2008 when it was listed as a WP:Featured article. Leading up to 2008, Jackson had released nine very successful albums, with 2006's 20 Y.O. certified Platinum. This was the last time Jackson scored Gold or Platinum in the US. In 2008, she released Discipline which missed the Gold, and our GA and FA versions of the article accounted for this disappointment. After that, in 2015 she released Unbreakable which sold even less well. That's it! No more possible fuel for the fire. One disappointing album cannot account for 60 or 80 more millions sold.

Mathematically it's impossible for Jackson to have sold 60 or 80 more millions on top of the most recent sales success she achieved in 2006.

Of course, the 100 million number was already inflated, as is the usual industry practice. Sales inflation is supposed to catch all the undocumented sales. But the numbers have also been inflated to puff up the careers of musical artists who do not want a negative comparison to other artists. That's what we're seeing with 160 and 180 million here. False inflation for purposes of ego. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is possible. (I'm referring to sales of all albums of all kinds + singles and maxi-singles released all over the world throughout the course of her career.) I do not subscribe to the belief both Universal Music Canada and Live Nation just fabricated the number (they must have access to data we don't, and I will not pretend to know better than them). We have no proof they did fabricate the number, and claims of inflation are pure speculation (just like those claiming Ariana Grande's or Rihanna's or Selena Gomez' songwriting credits to be complete bollocks and given to them "like a royalty" with no proof whatsoever like they're not intelligent enough to write, at the very least, a lyrical verse or just one melody line). And we have NBC (a reliable source) + other sources backing it up. I'll just go with WP:V and WP:STICKTOSOURCE on this one. Investigative/guess work like this is none of my duty as an editor.  Asartea   Trick  undefined  Treat, WarehouseMusic, do you still agree to the update from 100 million to 180 million? I do (sources provided). Israell (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of choosing sources that make sense versus choosing sources claiming ridiculously impossible numbers pulled out of thin air. We are all intelligent humans who can make sensible decisions. You will note that Janet Jackson's sales figures at List of best-selling music artists are still 52.5 million certified and 100 million industry inflation. Janet has been discussed over there, too, with the conclusion by that 100 million was probably too high, but was widely published and suitable enough. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The 160 million is, in fact, so inflated that it isn't even worth discussing. Based on Janet Jackson's available certified sales, even the 100 million figure is inflated. Bear in mind that since early 2000s, Janet Jackson's records sales slowed down enormously, she could have sold tens of millions of records since then. This is obvious when one takes a look at Janet Jackson's RIAA certification. She literally hasn't had a single certification issued since 2006 by the RIAA. Similarly, her certifications came to a stop by all other certifying bodies, including BPI, BVMI. By the way, WP doesn't forbid verifying the reliability of the content. Newer sources also claim 100 million records for Janet Jackson such as this, and the 100 million is more in line with her available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will not make the claim those labels and NBC have "pulled ridiculously impossible numbers out of thin air." I have specified world sales, not just US sales that are so centric in these discussion. They have data we may not be privy to that go beyond those certifications. And there are streaming figures on YouTube, Spotify, etc. (a certain number of streams amount to one sale) that may be included in the 180 million figure. I vote to go with the 180 million figure. Israell (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Change course This talk page section is flawed from top to bottom. Wikipedia doesn’t allow “original research” on it’s articles, including article Talk pages. Statements like Mathematically it's impossible and The 160 million is, in fact, so inflated that it isn't even worth discussing mean nothing without sources to back up your claims. What sources claims inflation? What sources says it’s mathematically impossible? There aren’t any. The key here is to “Stick to the sources.” Again, that applies to both talk page discussion and article editing. So with that said, when there are contradicting sources, Wikipedia requires us to debate the sources, not “original research” which may or may not be correct. When debating the sources, Wikipedia would suggest that the newer article(s) with any updated information be heavily weighted, only if it’s a reliable and responsible source. This entire discussion needs to change course and stick to what we know Wikipedia rules to be. TruthGuardians (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We are sticking to sources, and they are reliable sources, and newer sources. They actually do pull those ridiculously inflated figures out of thin air, that is a very old and very cheap marketing strategy. I am also speaking of worldwide certified sales, not just US. Inflated sales figures tossed about by record companies are for promotional purposes. Seeing those figures are nothing new. Janet Jackson's worldwide available certified sales stand at 52.7 million, check this file I put together for her certified sales. There is no way she could have sold more than 100 million records. The streaming, BTW, also gets certified once the number of streams reach the equivalent certification-levels.--Harout72 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * “Harout72 is correct in observing that Jackson's certifications ceased after 2006, which means all the higher numbers are hogwash.” The statement is is not sourced. This not sticking to the sources, instead attempting to perform original research.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I, too, am arguing the sources. I am arguing that the sources saying 100 million are far better informed and more authoritative than the ones saying 160 or 180 million. Harout72 is correct in observing that Jackson's certifications ceased after 2006, which means all the higher numbers are hogwash. The thing that would convince me is a source discussing how Jackson got up to 160 or 180 million, documenting some kind of fairly recent high-volume sales that I don't know about. Nothing like that exists. Stick to sources: the believable ones and not the fluffers. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You’re not. You are still claiming inflated numbers. I can understand if we were discussing the 300million figure on Madonna’s page(not a featured article for a reason), but we are not. What source specifically claims inflation? There are none.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And we cannot be absolutely certain those NBC and those labels lied. Were we in court, could we prove it? Chances are, they'd produce evidence for the 180 million figure. Israell (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The existent certifications for Janet Jackson clearly suggest that the 160 million is impossible. Certifications are reliable. We don't need a source that immediately says Yes Janet Jackson's 160 million is inflated. Like I said above, we are sticking to reliable sources, and the sources that are in line with Janet's certified sales are the 100 million figures.--Harout72 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, what resource says, “ The existent certifications for Janet Jackson clearly suggest that the 160 million is impossible.” There isn’t any. That’s not sticking to a source, in fact, that’s not sticking to any existing source in the world. That called original research. You are assuming that one source is correct over the other based on your conclusions and not a source that suggests otherwise. Perhaps a review of WP:NOR may assist with a better understanding of what Wikipedia is about. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The content guideline at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS informs us that our job is to weigh the sources and determine whether they are reliable for the statement they are making. That's what we are doing here with the discussion of sales figures. If a recently published source is trumpeting a wildly inflated number then it is not reliable for that specific statement. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTEXTMATTERS has absolutely nothing to do here. The guideline certainly doesn’t say “this guideline makes it okay to perform original research and that’s what’s being done here. What the guideline actually assists with is identifying reliable resources. That’s it. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. No one is disputing that there isn’t a reliable source for 100 million figure, and no one is disputing that there are sources with a higher figure (minus the Monae speech sources, which I do agree couldn’t be used here). Which source(s) are we going to use here should be the debate. If the article with the 100 million figure has the most recent date, then I’ll go with that one. Consensus is reached until other later reliable sources states otherwise. TruthGuardians (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is reached until other later reliable sources states otherwise? Who's exactly given you the authority to ignore the discussions of other editors? You might want to go over WP:Consensus, because there is no consensus amongst us. We explained in multiple ways that 60 million records cannot have been produced in a matter a few years as there is no proof of such number of certified units. While you find yourself repeating that we need to stick to what sources say, we are providing proof of her certified sales and at the same time sticking to sources. To keep this discussion from becoming any more futile, I suggest to state in the lead "there are sources that put Jackson's records sales at 100 million, and there are also sources that put her sales at 160 million". That will save everybody's time.--Harout72 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn’t understand what I am saying above. I didn’t say WE have reached consensus, I said consensus WOULD be reached if we all agreed. Again, your “original research” is not a reliable source. Give me a reliable source that is saying what you are above. As I was saying, If the 100 million figure is what the latest sources states(and it does), the keep the figure as is... for now. Until it can be updated per a later reliable source. OR We can update the lead to say something like you suggested, “Having sold between 100-160 million records...”TruthGuardians (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Give you a reliable source that says what I say above? Sure, here it is. As for my suggestion, I'm not suggesting to state "Jackson has sold between 100-160 million", I'm suggesting to keep it neutral from all angles and simply state "there are sources that put Jackson's records sales at 100 million, and there are also sources that put her sales at 160 million". In other words, readers can look up Jackson's available certified sales and decide for themselves which figure is accurate.--Harout72 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t be opposed to your suggestion. I say let’s go for it. TruthGuardians (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To start and be honest I don't see having a "centrist" point with her US sales/certs it's wrong. Let's breakdown some facts to have a detailed answer.
 * (1) In perspective: 39.750 million certified units in USA it's a lot of copies but at the same time a "tiny" figure and we are talking about her main market. Brief comparison: there are others best-sellers artists with more of 50% certified outside USA. Or half and half which is consistent but it's not her case. Outside her country, we can see her certified units are even less, including all-time biggest markets aside USA: United Kingdom, Japan or Germany to mention few examples.
 * (2) Sure those are only "certified" units and she as with almost any other artist probably sold more in the USA (although we don't use that method in our list, figures provided "beyond certified units" for example by Billboard/Nielsen SoundScan or BMG Club and so on). Outside USA, in those countries where she entered in their database her figures beyond certifications are even minimum or inexistent, including following biggest markets: France (infodisc and others), Japan (provided by Oricon) or United Kingdom (provided by OCC) etc. And as an act from 1980's, the tendency of (a lot of) big uncertified sales is the same. We can easily include "big markets" at her time like Italy, Brazil or Mexico etc but her name is nowhere (not even with "only available sales" —uncertified units—) and overall in their database.
 * Overall there are some facts that we usually don't put attention. Example: IFPI works in 66 countries (as of 2021) and there are some cases where an artist have had sales even in countries where music records are unusual, at least with one album. Other fact: in our wiki list the highest range of the available number of countries is around 22 countries ("biggest markets" or minimum sales of 100K units). It's impossible say something like with 10-22 countries are worldwide sales (maybe 70/80/90%.. and depends in each case) but even "tinies" markets in the case of some artists have available sales/certifications of "millions" in collective terms due a long catalog of albums/singles either only "available sales" or a certification prior their database, verifiable through reliable sources. But once again, is not her case. And let's assume good faith because we can fails in arguments like appeal to ignorance with many countries, but even counting individually worldwide sales from her albums/singles (lowest/middle claim figures), her sales are not up to 100 million. But personally, I don't have problem to keep the 100 million figure, because there some numbers and facts that we can't always see. However her other claims: 120, 160, 180 or 200 million are inflated, yes and probably a minority point of view. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

Please excuse me (WarehouseMusic) for that fact I am fairly new to this "Talk" section, feels like I'm back in the late 90's cyber boards, lol. So, I don't know how where this will poo-up... The "100 million" has been used for decades now and we all know Billboard can be shady, especially towards the Jacksons. It just comes down to who's writing the media article, who's willing to do the research and we all know there's two different figures to go by - The Official Certifications VS Label's Press Release. The fact remains we will never have world access to the current certifications entities to get the most updated figures (goes for all artists). Especially older artists like Janet Jackson, who hasn't updated her RIAA certifications in decades. We all know that 26 RIAA figure has risen since her last certification (2006). Her most successful albums haven't even been updated since 1990. The main factor (I believe) is because there's no more retail music stores like Tower Records, Music Warehouse, Virgin Records, etc to hand over all their numbers since they've all closed. Some were still around in the 00's and still, many artists then (including Janet) still didn't update their RIAA. Updating RIAA numbers is like a tax audit and with those stores gone. Well, paper work could be found in the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve in the bankrupt department (in each individual state). That would be a huge hassle to retrieve those receipts (that's even if they still exist). So, practical practice with music labels, they have their account mathematician do mathematical equations to come up with a running average for up to date sales numbers.

We all know The Beatles aren't RIAA's top selling artist of all time when Michael Jackson has two albums still charting Billboard 200 for the past 12 consecutive years and they haven't! Another example, "Design of the Decade" sold the same amount as Madonna's "Immaculate Collection," selling 2 million in the first 2 months, the only difference is, one artist invested in certifications over the other. Virgin Records' website posted an article written by Richard Branson himself in 2016 that mentioned that the "janet." album had sold "20 million copies." Most important, back in 2019, when Janet Jackson was honored at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, it was announced that she sold 180 million records worldwide at the ceremony. Rolling Stone reported it and in that same year, PressParty.com posted the official press release from respected labels (A&M/Virgin/UMe) that included a last paragraph stating, "Having sold over 180 million albums worldwide to date..." when Janet Jackson released 5 vinyl reissues.

We all heard the saying, "Straight from the horse's mouth." If the label or Rock & Roll Hall of Fame states Janet Jackson has sold 180 million, she sold 180 million. - WarehouseMusic — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarehouseMusic (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, the "horse's mouth" would be certification bodies such as RIAA. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame didn't say Jackson had some number of millions of sales; no, actually it was just Janelle Monáe making a speech, which they reprinted verbatim. Nobody here is saying that Monáe's speech is one of our most reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"The fact remains we will never have world access to the current certifications entities to get the most updated figures (goes for all artists)." WarehouseMusic has a great point here. I frankly doubt that Janet Jackson has only sold 100 million units. And keep in mind the term "records", in this sense, includes singles and maxi-singles (physical + digital); it is not just about the albums. Monáe probably got that number from that NBC article and/or one of the labels (A&M/Virgin/UMe). Israell (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
As I mentioned above, it would be best to simply state in the lead "there are sources that put Jackson's records sales at 100 million, and there are also sources that put her sales at 160 million". If everybody supports this suggestion, then we'll implement it. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anything like "Sources claim that Jackson has sold between 100 and 160 million records", there is a difference between the latter and my suggestion. We are to keep it neutral for all involved sides here, and let the readers decide by looking up Jackson's available certified sales and decide for themselves which figure is more reasonable.--Harout72 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The NBC source (as well as the record labels) state 180 million. I agree to the following: "There are sources that put Jackson's records sales at 100 million, and there are also sources that put her sales at 180 million." Israell (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Or: "There are sources that put Jackson's records sales at 100 million, while other sources put her sales at 160 million or 180 million." Israell (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will never agree to have the article say 180 million—a ridiculous number pulled from thin air.
 * Regarding Harout72's suggested 100–160 million text, I would greatly prefer to tell the reader what her sales figures have been historically, and what is the certified number, so that they can see how 100 and 160 are artificially inflated. We can chart it out chronologically, starting with how her global sales were reported by the media as 40 million at the beginning of 2001, then in April 2001 her own website reported "almost 60 million", following which the media accepted and reprinted the 60 million number. And so on. If we say anything about 160 million our text should introduce the number as an unlikely inflation. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like with the David Bowie article: only one figure in lead (perhaps 100 million) and a note with the other figures. "Her record sales, estimated at over 100 million records worldwide made her one of the best-selling music artist" (Note: "Additional sources place this figure somewhere between 120, 160 or 180 million". Or "Sales may vary...."). I also support the idea to give readers some chronological or a breakdown of what Binksternet suggested. This is Janet's case, but I think eventually we will or need to implement this in the future with all artists and let the readers what they want believe and what not, despite figures may came from thanks to inflated reports from their record companies or a cyclic information (vandalism in some cases) thanks to Wikipedia. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with mentioning anything higher than 160 million either. As for Binksternet's suggestion, I would agree with that also, but a breakdown of that kind should go under a subsection. We can add a section entitled Records sales. An explanation that detailed in the lead wouldn't be reasonable. We can also consider removing the records sales from the lead altogether, and have the detailed breakdown in the Records sales section only.--Harout72 (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Blinksternet suggestion is considered original research and they are not a reliable source. Madonna sales as reported by many, many reliable sources is considered to be just over 200 million. The inflated 300 million figure isn’t well sourced. So if we are going to use original research to update an article then we are going to have to do so across the board. Not just with Madonna, but almost every musician on Wikipedia. No one gets a pass here. I can agree to the 160 million figure too. Appears as though 2 of us are willing to accept Harouts suggestion. It’s a suggestion that will keep this article as a featured article and then once consensus is confirmed, I say that those of us who have the bandwidth move forward to getting Madonna’s article it’s featured status. She’s the Queen of Pop for goodness sakes, and while GA article status is cool, it deserves to be a featured article too. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have mention Madonna's case but at many points is completely different from Janet Jackson. She has big sales before the database of markets such as Italy (2009) or Brazil (1990) to mention a very few examples. Janet simply doesn't even sold or certified in those markets and list continue. Even the first singer is one of a couple examples of artists with millions and millions (yes, millions and millions and millions) of non counted copies in the best-selling music artists list. And that's why we can't argue she just only sold "174 million copies" (based on certifications), because it's complety wrong and is the same with Janet, we can't argue she just sold 52.2 million because it's wrong. At least, add some USA sales reported by Billboard, Nielsen or BMG Club in Jackson's case. That's why despite even 100 million seems high, i don't oppose to keep that figure because we can't see all numbers and facts as I said before. And at some point, our best-selling list is kinda of original research, yes I also agree with that. In my humble opinion, if we are going to show another different figure than 100 million, should be all possible next available sales: 120, 160 and 180 in a simple statement such as "Sales vary, other figures include...". Let the reader choose in their mind what they want to believe, and honestly i don't care if are part of a "section" (Record sales) or in a note. Please be advise a note doesn't need to be only of a few lines, we can see the Elvis Presley examples in "Explanatory notes". The main goal should be don't hide all of those facts and numbers to our readers. After all, all of these figures sales are based in reliable sources and we have the recommendation of verifiability, not truth.. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Madonna is being mentioned here for comparison and I can't see why her 300 million is being viewed as poorly sourced and inflated as there are reliable sources supporting that such as this and this. Madonna's 300 million, if inflated, is inflated far less than Janet's 160 million. In other words, Madonna's 300 million is supported by 174 million certified units (or 58% certified sales), while Janet's 160 million is supported by 52.5 million certified units (or 32.8% certified sales). As for Binksternet's suggestion, if he could provide sources for the statements he's suggesting, then that's not OR.--Harout72 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From those numbers, I calculate 90.5 million as a comparable number for Janet as compared to Madonna, that is, if every artist's industry inflated sales were based on a core of 58% certified sales. Which shows how 100 million is already an over-inflated figure, and anything larger is ego padding. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Madonna is being mentioned because the same editors that are commenting here also edits her page and is allowing her inflated numbers to go unchecked when there are plenty of other sources that says otherwise, but this conversation is for a different time on her talk page... in due time. Like I said above, Blinksternet’s suggestion is original research, so no. And just to go further into what OR is about it’s similar to all of this math going on here. Take court transcripts and documents for example. They aren’t allowed to be used as a source on Wikipedia by themselves, unless another source has combed through them and wrote about it in an article that could be used as a reliable source. We as editors are not allowed to draw our own conclusions about about what is in the court documents even if it is spelled out in the documents. Sort of with this math here. None, and I do be none, of this math means nothing as the equations above are self sourced and not mentioned in any reliable resources. Again, we are not reliable resources. So please, no more math. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We may have comparisons, some of them close to but each artist is a different case, even to generalize some of the "rules" inside. And perhaps the "List of best-selling music artists" should be renamed to "List of highest certified artists (worldwide)" because those aren't the whole sales of many of them. No matter if is included only the "biggest markets" and if we've the perception that "small markets" doesn't make a difference to exclude them (certainly in some cases and maybe in others simply not). And once again, seems this part has been overestimated but many acts have tons of collectively millions sold in their career with uncertified sales (mainly before 1990s). In Janet's case seems it's very minimal but perhaps enough to have a difference with no problem of "48 million missing" with the 100M claim despite seems "inflated". Of course, unless if every single report is "unreal" and that's include Billboard (USA), Official Charts Company (UK), Oricon (Japan) etc to overlook them and only focus in "certifications", the same with those sales with organizations who have now available online database but until relative recent (Italy, Brazil etc). That's other history but a related answer to all issues brought in this discussion. To put it simple I don't have problem having a "Explanatory note" (detailed or simplified) showing other report(s): 120, 160 and/or 180. That's will be a wiser decision. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't believe in 2021 Jackson's fans still drag Madonna in every possible way, when it has nothing to do about her in the first place. Madonna's 200 million figure is for albums alone as confirmed by the IFPI (and you can calculate all the claimed figures from each albums on Madonna albums discography). And she's always been a global figure, where her US statistics contribute far less than half of her sales. For example Confessions on a Dance Floor sold between 8-10 million with only 1,7 million in the USA (which is about 18-20%). Madonna is heavily unbenefited from the lack of certifications outside of USA (such as Italy and Brazil, as pointed out by Apoxyomenus above). Now back to Janet Jackson, I oppose anything above 100 million, considering her available certified units at 52,2 million (albums + singles + videos). If we make a special treatment for this page, then other artists will follow sooner or later (Diana Ross 100 million, Celine 250 million, or Madonna 335 million, based on claims by media). And we also should note that Janet has never been as big globally. It's easily proven by her chart statistics. In YouTube, 60% of her views came from the USA. If those 180 million are true, it means that she sold at least 100 million copies in the USA, which is way impossible. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn’t about a fan/fandom. In fact, truth be told I am a fan of both. I have pictures I’ve taken with both women plastered on my social media. My passion for Madonna does slightly surpass Janet. Again, this is about the sources. Although I don’t like Madonna’s core fan base. I also don’t worship either artist. There are two reliable sources stating different numbers. Minus the OR, there’s no math projected here that is going to change that. So bringing the conversation back on course, yet again, I support Harouts72’s suggestion as it per Wikipedia’s rules and it is a compromise of opposing editors. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's you who keep moaning about Madonna being inflated and Janet being deflated. Nobody cares about your musical preferences, to be really honest. Madonna has 174 million certified units (58% of the claimed 300 million records) and Janet has 52.5 million (52% of the claimed 100 million records). If we pass the 180 million claim for Janet, it means that it's only backed by 29% certifications. By that logic, Madonna could claim has high as 600 million records, lmfao. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lmfao? Is this a forum? I’m a bit confused. Again, back to the sources. Not unreliable OR. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You still haven't proved your statement that Madonna is "over inflated". If anything, 100 million for Janet is more inflated than 300 million for Madonna, based on certiified units. Yes, we're back to sources which put 100 million records. Everybody can claim, even Nana Mouskouri's team claims 350 million records, despite her non-existent chart positions and certifications. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep it civil. TruthGuardians is right to make that comparison if he deems it appropriate, and the details he gave were in response to what he was told. I, for one, support having different figures show, and that includes the 180 million figure. "There are sources that put Jackson's records sales at 100 million, while other sources put her sales at 160 million or 180 million." Is this statement true or false? It is true! WP:V WP:STICKTOSOURCE Some sources (NBC, record labels and even more sources) do put Janet's record sales at 180 million. Whether or not we think that figure is accurate is irrelevant. And those are world record sales (all countries) including singles and maxi-singles, not just albums; world record sales spanning her whole career; documented sales as well as undocumented sales, certified sales as well as uncertified sales. I see no problem with displaying all three figures (100 million, 160 million and 180 million). Israell (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand or try to understand both sides. Again, despite I support the note addition and since you guys have keep posting new additions and because I based both in "undocument"/"uncertified" sales (not included in our list of best-sellers artists) along with "certified units" (from our list of best-sellers) to have a "global idea". Her case barely should be ok with 100 million (the next available closest figure and considering "48 million missing" with the first "method") but beyond that figure as it was pointed is still wrong and it's a corollary. Even assuming good faith, if some sales from other markets haven't been included in one or all her articles, as usually happens but consider this: she only has 3 albums with sales up to 10 million (ofc, verifiable figures). Her first two albums were "unsuccessful" in certs terms and the last two/one as well. Even if we count the available worldwide sales from each of her albums/singles the story is the same — And we can continue and continue to ask where are those claimed sales? She sold 20 million from each album or she got multiplatinum IFPI European awards? (As far as I know she only received that award from 2-3 albums and were only 1x Platinum). Do we need to dismiss the Binksternet's point with a chronologically sales report? (e,g 40 million in 2001/1999) and where are the others 120/140 million, does she sold from 2006 to the present year an additional 50/100/120 million records? Or perhaps she received an update from a lot certifications or her albums charted again many times in the charts over the years (like with Back to Black, The Immaculate Collection, Thriller etc)? This is going nowhere and I also don't have problem to keep only the 100 million if there is no consensus, because I also agree with the other side at many points. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TruthGuardians made comparison without any back-up proof. Certification is one of the proofs, of course it's not legitimate, but at least it gives you a rough overview of the overall picture. 100 million is generous enough for Janet Jackson, who is a primarily R&B/U.S.-oriented artist and 52.5 million certified units.  Even Universal Music also claims "approximately " 100 million records for Janet, what else? We applied this to many other artist from The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and even Madonna (we have sources claiming 350 million and 335 million for her). Do we put the highest available numbers for these artists? No we obviously don't! Hence we have no reason why Janet should be exception. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sticking to the reliable sources. You are performing original research. You are essentially not saying that I am wrong, you are saying that a reliable source is wrong. Because when you WP:STICKTOSOURCE you aren’t left with any self created flawed math equations that does not amount to anything in this discussion. Absolutely nothing. The source says that Janet sold 160 million records. It doesn’t say that it’s a “mathematical impossibility” it doesn’t need “back up proof,” it doesn’t need to be compared to possibly wrong certifications and numbers from other articles. None of that applies. All of it is original research. WP:STICKTOSOURCE here. When doing that, as all editors are required to do, you are left with conflicting articles. Thus Harout72’s or Israell’s suggestion is the best suggestion to remedy this dispute. Your argument shouldn’t be how it’s an impossibility when that isn’t spelled out in a single source. It should be how do we make these sources work for this article while meeting Wikipedia expectations.


 * P.S. If those sources suggesting Madonna sold 335-350 million records, they should absolutely be considered if they are reliable sources. Right now, the Book of Guinness records is being sources for her numbers. The same source said that Michael Jackson’s Thriller album sold 104 million records worldwide (in 2006). While that is totally believable, for some reason it’s not allowed to be sourced there, but is sourced for Madonna. TruthGuardians (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This press release, also from Universal Music, claims "over 180 million albums worldwide to date", and it was issued in 2019. NBC's article is from 2016; it says: "Janet’s influence is obviously embedded in today’s crop of female performers like Beyoncé, Ciara and Tinashe. Selling a staggering 180 million albums worldwide, Janet has become one of the top-selling female artists of all time with 10 #1 hits. Her latest album “Unbreakable,” earned the singer her seventh #1 album." You'll notice how both sources make a claim of "180 million albums." I simply suggest all three figures (100 million, 160 million and 180 million) be used with the terms "records" instead of "albums." The term "records", as we use it, refer to albums and also singles and maxi-singles. In the course of this discussion, singles and maxi-singles sales seem to be ignored when it must be included. Israell (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Israell, anyone that believes that Janet could have sold "over 180 million albums worldwide to date" when there is only 35.5 million certified units of albums is clearly someone who has no idea how music sales operate. The fact you can't see how ridiculously overblown that 180 million figure is for just Jakcson's albums' sales, goes to show how clueless you are, I'm sorry to say. So according to that press release, 145 million albums have gone uncertified? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? The 160 million records as it stands, which is for all formats of albums, singles and videos is inflated enough, and now you are trying to argue that the 160 or 180 is not even Jackon's overall sales but just albums sales? Having said all that, only some 10% to 15% of records sales remain uncertified. Even when looking at the 160 million in terms of records (albums, singles, videos), that translates to over 100 million uncertified albums, singles and videos. This discussion isn't going to end like this. I'd say either leave the 100 million records in place as it is now, or remove the sales figures altogether by placing a footnote saying "Janet Jackson's sales figures are not included in the article due to having disagreements amongst the editors as to which figure is accurate". And the footnote can be linked to this discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Israell is merely citing information from sources. Perhaps instead of insulting him, you should direct that energy to the people that wrote the sources. “is clearly someone who has no idea how music sales operate,” “how clueless you are,” and “Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds,” are all uncalled for and against Wikipedia guidelines. This discussion is quickly slipping into moderated arbitration, and while I have 100% record at successfully coming out the other end victorious with the same arguments presented here, it’s such a grueling and drawn out process. I don’t support any of Harout72’s new suggestions. Sticking to what was originally proposed.TruthGuardians (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Have I written that statement that appeared on one of the official Universal Music websites? No. Have I written the NBC statement? No. "Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?" I don't care, and as an editor, that's not my problem. It's not about what I think. WP:V WP:STICKTOSOURCE That's all that matters. "and now you are trying to argue that the 160 or 180 is not even Jackson's overall sales but just albums sales?" No. I have just noted that they used the terms "albums", while I am in favour of using the term "records" instead since the term "records" includes singles and maxi-singles and is therefore, judging by the arguments made here, more realistic. The question is, just why is there a problem with including all three figures, esp. when they are all sourced? Israell (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Israell, I don't care, and as an editor, that's not my problem? As an editor if you don't care and you think it's not your problem, why are you continuing this discussion. In fact, it is our duty as editors to carefully weighed and judge whether the content in sources are reliable for what we're trying to include in the main article here. The very fact that they tossed in the term albums in there and not records goes to show how little they care about being precise. The same similar way, they've tossed in the 180 million figure in there. But it is our job to separate their sloppiness from the truth, that's exactly why we're utilizing the certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually thought were were arguing record sales this entire time. I didn’t realize some were thinking in terms of albums. Two completely different beasts.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The 100 million records is the most accurate, according to what is reliable for sales, which are certificates and chart performances. Janet Jackson is not a global artist, she is more successful in the United States and some Asian countries, like Japan. Around 2010 when the Janet website was updated, the sales of each record were all there, they spoke in 10 million for Control and 12 million and 14 million for the next two albums, but after complaints from fans on Twitter who said sales were dated, the information was deleted. You can already see that the media and record companies use information from Wikipedia to make their press releases, which is why some fans insist on changing sales here, because changing sales here is changing everything that will be placed in several sites in the next, months, or even years, the 380 million copies of ABBA, for example, came from here.--88marcus (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your input. This discussion however is about contradicting reliable sources. Not so much about an opinion about the accuracy of the overall worldwide record sales. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion here is about contradictions in reliable sources, and per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we are now assessing the sources to see which ones are the most reliable for total sales figures. 88marcus's comments refer to circular reporting which is a huge ongoing problem with reliability in modern sources. The observation by 88marcus should not be dismissed out of hand. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Context matters guideline is for identifying a source as a reliable source. Not the content of an already known reliable source. The identification process is over. No one is disputing that NBC isn’t a reliable source. We need to look at the guidelines for what they are, not what you desire them to be. At this point I believe arbitration is best. Perhaps an impartial admin can explain the guidelines better than I have. From Context Matters, to Original research, to Stick to the source. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are flat wrong. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS tells us to examine and weigh context, which means NBC can be reliable or unreliable, depending on context. That's the whole point of the paragraph in the guideline. If NBC had provided detailed analysis of the 180 million figure, explaining why it was valid, we would not be having this discussion. Instead, NBC threw the number out in passing, which is one of the red flags of context.
 * Request for comment is the next step, not arbitration. ARBCOM would not accept this dispute as serious enough. It's a simple matter, really. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

One more source—a Dec. 2020 article from Ask.com entitled 'The Top-Earning Songwriters of All Time': "Jackson set the music industry on fire. In 1992, she became one of the highest-paid artists after she signed a record-breaking multi-million dollar contract with Virgin. Throughout her career, she’s sold more than 180 million records. Today, Jackson is one of the best-selling artists in the world with a net worth of $175 million." Some more sources:    Once again, I am in favour of all three figures being displayed (100, 160, 180). Israell (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Great job at finding even more reliable sources. This is becoming too easy at this point.TruthGuardians (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's becoming easy at this point is the fact that you two are easily going to be considered disruptive for refusing to get the point.--Harout72 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus has not been reached, so there is no failure to “get the point.” Rule only applies once consensus is reached. It hasn’t been. I could easily make the same false accusation of disruptive editing and say we have reached a consensus, but we haven’t. This will be going to arbitration.TruthGuardians (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you two are repeating yourselves tirelessly to get the 160 million and even the 180 million on the main page is because there always has been a general consensus amongst editors to leave those inflated figures out. So yes, similar and even more detailed explanation was given to you two in this discussion, as I noticed was given to other Janet Jackson fans in other discussion threads in the archive. Yet, both of you continue to refuse to get the point, and that is disruptive.--Harout72 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is reliable sources put her sales at 180 million, and I favour having those three figures show. Four of us here (WarehouseMusic, TruthGuardians, Asartea and I) agree w/ the inclusion of the 180 million figure. I will not pretend to know better than Universal Music and NBC, and as I've noted, they may have access to data we don't. Israell (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Israell First, most of your sources are unreliable. Second, I don't see a person named Asartea having commented. Third, whether you think Universal might have access to whatever non-existent sales data is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there isn't such number of certified units to justify the 160 million, let alone the 180 million. Also, it doesn't matter how many people on your side agrees with the inclusion of those nonsensical figures, you have to be able to come forward with evidence of sales justifying those numbers, which so far you have failed to do so. Just saying that there are sources that published those inflated numbers isn't going to get your message across. Again, unless you can prove that over 100 million units of sales exist that have gone uncertified, repeating what you have been here is only disruptive to this lengthy discussion which has long gone out of range.--Harout72 (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Harout72, Asartea  did agree to the update here, and this is here is their edit . And no, I have nothing to prove. WP:V WP:STICKTOSOURCE The rest is none of my business as an editor, and I have no investigation to conduct. So far, four editors agree with the update, five don't. Others may want to weigh in. WarehouseMusic has provided a lengthy explanation (regarding certifications, etc.) you've disregarded. I will not be bullied into accepting your point of view, and I have nothing more to add. Israell (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of these sources are reliable and are used elsewhere. None of what is expressed above is how Wikipedia even works. Never has been. It’s not an editor’s job to prove that a reliable source is accurate. That’s called called original research which is prohibited throughout all of Wikipedia. It’s the editors job to stick to the sources. If there was just one reliable source that states the figures being discussed, then perhaps this discussion could end. It’s in more than one reliable source. And when that is the case, all reliable sources must be represented in the article accordingly. TruthGuardians (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The NBC source alone is sufficient, and the Universal Music source help back it up. And there are other sources and reports. How reliable depends on a number of factors, but just one (NBC) is sufficient for inclusion. Some of us did agree to include both the 100 million and 160 million figures, so I do not understand the aversion to also showing the well-sourced 180 million figure. I do not care how NBC and Universal Music came up with the figure, and it's none of my business. Some reliable sources have come to that conclusion for a reason (they may have access to information we are not privy to) and readers deserve to be informed. This is how Wikipedia works. Israell (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has devolved into a clown car echo chamber, so I'm done arguing. If any inflated and woefully unrealistic number larger than 100 million shows up on the article page, it's getting reverted and the responsible person reported for edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If consensus is reached for a figure larger than 100 million, I will see with the administration that the article reflects it. But for now, I will not edit it, and I have nothing more to add. Israell (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

After reviewing this entire discussion, it appears as though that the editors that have accurately explained WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:NOR, while teaching me a few things in the process, is why I would support updating the article to reflect the 180 million figure, without even mentioning any other figures. There is only a single editor here not willing to compromise while others have shown their willingness to compromise. Why should compromise be derailed over a point of view that is not backed by any Wikipedia guidelines? I also find myself dumbfounded over the bullying and incivility towards the editors that are only citing sources and Wikipedia guidelines and have remained civil the entire time. This behavior is alarming. Fancypants786 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. With respect, if there is something called WP:STICKTOSOURCE we have another one called WP:CONTEXMATTERS. 160 and 180 millions are circular reportings and yes, are inflated figures (even with a benefit of the doubt) . It's interesting you only accept "one figure" (180 million which is the highest btw), but the proccess with certifications attached is something that we can't overlook and is generally accepted in Wikipedia. What I can support without any background from the Janet supporters in this discussion is keeping the 100M (since it has been looked as inflated sales too) because there are always uncertified and some undocument sales (example: she has 39.750M certs in the USA but pretty sure she sold bit more -millions- but beyond that her main market her name is usually nowhere). -Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, that is not what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS mean. I know this because 2 admins have already corrected me on this as I use to think in the exact same context above. What you are doing is performing Original research. CONTEXTMATTERS is used to determine if the source is a reliable source. NBC, among others links are already known as reliable sources. These aren’t new sources that we are trying to determine are reliable. CONTEXTMATTERS only matters in the identification process. NBC is an already identified reliable source.TruthGuardians (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. When I read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS it reads exactly how you have explained it. And so does all the other guidelines you brilliantly explained. As far as being new to Wiki, I’m not new, just inexperienced and have learned a lot here from TruthGaurdians. Everyone is posting unsubstantiated claims about inflated numbers. I have yet to read one source that says that Jackson’s numbers are inflated. That’s the problem, there is in fact original research in this discussion.Fancypants786 (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys received a lot of replies with many valid points and personally I feel I look like a machine talking about the same things (to add in my point a generalistic view and try don't have cherry-picking statements): uncertified record sales etc but those are facts and you also dismissing the fact that for one reason we have sources citing the 100 million record even today. At a certain point, as I said I support the idea that the list of best-selling artists could be OR (but it's not wrong) and that's mainly because looks an incomplete report dismissing the uncertified sales among other minor points. BUT at the same time, it's tricky because doesn't apply to the all artists or at least at the same level. Briefly in this line, we can't compare the chart performances/certifications average of Garth Brooks (a guy who has above 95% of his certifications only and exclusively from USA and barely outside) with ABBA e,g, an act with above 50% of their certs outside USA. While others have half and half (USA/Worldwide). Trying to understand Janet's case with all of these "methods" but there is not too much to justify a jump of with no-sense. We don't need an immediate source referring those "unsubstantiated claims" of "inflated sales" like we don't need a source showing that United States is a country. And it's not cherry-picking statements, even with the benefit of the doubt and assuming good faith that some sales report in some markets hasn't been include despite if "probably" there are references. Keep in mind once again: Janet Jackson, an act with USA as a main market hasn't received certifications in key markets outside (Mexico, Brazil, Italy —I keep mentioning them as examples because we can see during her time sales were big overall—). We can't even at least see uncertified sales and the list of countries continue. Let's assume good faith again, and probably there are references and haven't been included, even if she is a "super seller" but strangely and despite having a long catalog there is nothing. But add those whom have their database online before she appeared and reports not hard to get like in France or United Kingdom with OCC and we can see once again there aren't biggest sales in those markets, at least to jump from 52 cert/100 million to 180M. In my understanding everyone can check out these things because their online databases are open. Or i'm wrong? In another good summary to see how sales increase is the summary of the IFPI Platinum Europe Awards where in my understanding she only has 2-3 albums certified and both with 1x platinum level, or perhaps I'm wrong? Let's guess it, i'm wrong because is "OR". I forgot this, but there are some Janet's fans angry with Wikipedia. Following that spirit now perhaps we all can add the 1 billion figure for Elvis Presley or The Beatles and we can't forget the update the Madonna claim (300) to 330-350 but better the 400-500 million claimed figures (and yes, those figures have reliable sources acceptable for our guidelines). Let's see what others think to start asap? --Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Apoxyomenus. I want to make clear that I’m not accusing you or any editor here to be wrong about any of the sales figures, as if I did that would mean WP:OR. WP:Sticktosources mean that we have to take a reliable resource literal. There are exceptions to that rule like if the author of the article was known to have an interest in the topic, Wikipedia has banned a source from its platform, or consensus was reached to topic ban an entire company behind a reliable source. None of that applies here. I want to make clear that I am not opposed to to still including the 100 million figure, but based on taking reliable resources literal, my position is adding those sources too. There are reliable resources that gives the 100 million figure and that should not be ignored, just like the many reliable features that provide us 160 million figure and the 180 million figure. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Apoxyomenus is right, you are sounding like a classic example of broken record. The fact that you don't stop and listen to what people are saying to you is disruptive. You have no other arguments directed at what people are saying except labeling everything Original Research. The adding numbers, converting certified units or provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious is not ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and that's exactly what certified units are. Even the most reliable sources make mistakes, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis", and that's what WP:CONTEXMATTERS is.--Harout72 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s not disruptive editing. That’s not CONTEXMATTER. It is OR. I’ve read your opinions on numbers. There are no sources that claims wrong numbers, only editors. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Enough reliable source state that her sales are over  160 million or even 180 million to include that. If we stick to sources and not speculate that the 160-180 figures are inflated, we should include something like "sources vary on how many Jackson sold". castorbailey (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

WHAT A LOAD OF CATEGORIES
I JUST REALIZED THAT THIS ARTICLE HAS LOTS OF CATEGORIES, RANGING FROM 20TH-CENTURY AMERICAN SINGERS TO RECORD PRODUCERS FROM INDIANA. AAAAAA Thecharacterwannaie (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)