Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 8

DISCREPANCY IN METHODS USED
we are using the highest reliable source for all artists but now michael jackson youre using about the lowest estimate anywhere. it says in multiple reliable sources, including a statement by SONY, (http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=  many more sources listed in MJ sections below) his agency that he has sold over 750 000 000 (before his death) now closer to 800 000 000. It said 750 000 000 just a few days ago but was suddenly changed. Please be consistent and remove your bias, use the same method for all artists and list MJ as 750 mil again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnprior (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you haven't been following the discussion, I suggest that you read the whole page.--Harout72 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's Sales Should Be At 750+ Million
Michael Jackson's sales need to be updated from 350+ Million to 750+ Million. wrong the were readjusted to the correct 350 million from the inflated mj figure of 750 million

I have several reliable sources to backup my claims.

this tells you everything http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwordpass (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony's Official Statement on Michael Jackson's passing and his sales figures: http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

Official Sony Press Release about his "This is it" movie: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

And finally MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million and they cite several sources: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

--Mrparissm (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

✅ --Cubs197 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note This change was reverted, hence further discussions below  Chzz  ►  02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Harrana (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)In 2001, Michael Jackson received a World Music Award for having sold 750 millions of albums. He later released Invincible and some compilation CDs. Tommy Mottola, former Sony's president, said that Jackson had sold 1 billion of albums.He received a world music award, in 1996, for best selling artist in history! So...why are you claiming that he only sold 350 millions of albums??? You may dislike Jackson but you must be impartial!

Michael Jackson recent sales
Due to recent published figures, it seems as though michael jackson's total shouldve increased, maybe up to 800 million. Does anyone agree with me or do you think this is premature? --Francopedorro (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe, the recent strong sales may narrow down the difference between the exaggerated figure of 750 million (which was most probably one of the tactics that Jackson's record company attempted to bring his fame back) and his actual sales.--Harout72 (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me MJ has sold in every country platinum pretty much did Elvis? or the Beatles? i dont think so thats racist and making Elvis to be a King of the World of music which is not realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.56.215 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 please do some research. How would him having sold 750 million records some how bring his fame back? Use common sense please. If you take The Beatles and Elvis's sales at face value from their record companies. You owe Michael Jackson the same respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrparissm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

fredaistair says - MJ's record company have never stated that he sold 750Million and never in writing, in fact Sony have wisely kept quiet as teh current hyped figure is good for business. Also The Wall Street Journal that has been listed as a source implies that it is inflated-so what sort of source is that. In fact it says it magically jumped from 210M to 750M, in fact this article proves the lie to the 750M. I would point out that Elvis sales figures of over a billion in 2001 come from Sony in writing,who specify that it was based on indivicual units.

The quality and accuracy of this sales listing has been diminished by the inflated MJ figures. There is hype, but this is total hype. Any proper count of MJ's sales albums and singles counted as seperate units would struggle to get much beyond the 300 Million mark. Are we in the propaganda business or in the business of giving at least reasonable figures

As to the point about Elvis/Beatles international sales, I suggest those questioning it visit Graceland, they will find 100's of international certifications for Elvis. It needs to be realised that the current international cerification body came into being well are the death of Elvis and the break up of The Beatles, nor does the the current body have the same respected status of The RIAA. In fact it is ignored by many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredaistair (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredaistair Sony has said it in writing. Here's a link to an OFFICIAL statement from Sony Music: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

THIS NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.--Mrparissm (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredaistair sys - Seriously friends Sony have never issued a formal statement on MJ's sales, on the contrary there is article after article and reports after reports that Sony are keeping silent on the subject of MJ's sales. Many other sources have picked up the 750 million figure including MTV as stated by the Wall Street Journal Article for casual sources.

To the best of my knowledge in fact, Sony/BGM in 2001 issued a press release claiming Elvis sales to be over a billion and claiming him to be the best selling. (same company as for MJ)and as far as I know this is the only time any record company has made this claim for anyone in written form.

We are all on the same side of trying to get reasonable accurate data. I know this is a difficult area. A suggestion, anyone with some influence or contact at Sony to at least ask them to give an approximate idea on sales in writing now. As they have both MJ and Elvis with them this would kill two birds with one stone. I respect both these guys and don't want to see either undersold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredaistair (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Same here Fredaistair. I don't want Michael Jackson's sales discounted either. Did you click on the links I provided? The first one is an official Press Release from Sony. So that is as credible as you can get right there. The second link is from MTV.com and they state he's sold 750 Million. If this is accurate enough for MTV to report I would think it would be accurate enough for here no? Harout72 specifically stated that MTV and a record company are reliable sources yet he still only cherry picks sources to fit his own agenda. Again CHECK the sources I provided. MJ has sold over 750 Million. And I will continue to post here until it's corrected. --Mrparissm (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

fredaistair here is another OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM SONY MUSIC. Of course Harout72 will just ignore this: http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

It doesn't get more official than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Mrparissm (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fredaistair says- I followed your thread and e-mailed Sony to ask if this was an official statement on the record sales and the contradiction in the Wall Street Journal and why there seems to be difference if you tot up the individual album sales reported. Lets get to the bottom of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredaistair (talk • contribs) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fredaistair. It looks like someone reviewed my sources and agrees with them and finally changed Michael Jackson's sales on here. I think you and a couple other people are getting too hung up on the WSJ article. That article has NO facts and is only stating what MIGHT be the case. They also state that Elvis's sales numbers MIGHT be off. But regardless of what that article says Michael Jackson's officials sales numbers stand at 750+ Million and Elvis's stand at 1 Billion +. There's no way to prove them wrong so it's best to trust the official statements. t his tells you everything http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world

--Mrparissm (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the list and even though Sony stated that Michael Jackson sold an estimated 750million record the wiki list states he only sold 370million. I know there are CNN pages stating something along that number but CNN also states the 750 million sales number.: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/

I assume CNN is confused and/or changed the 350million number it reported after SONY stated the bigger 750 million unit number.

I'd like to request a change on the "List of best-selling music artists" wiki page for Michael Jackson's total album sales - from 370 million to 750 million - since quite a lot of sites report the bigger number as well as SONY /I try to find reliable sources/.

-

Sources:

http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/ http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ http://www.cdwow.com/DVD/MICHAEL-JACKSON-HISTORY-THE-KING-OF-POP-1958/product/view/9990827 http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f27ec8db-af05-4f36-916e-3d57f91ecf5e

BBC states over 750 million.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/entertainment/celebrity/Michael-Jackson.html

A bit under calculated Thriller sales /but states total record sales as 750 million or so/ since this site states 27 million while RIAA states 28 million.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/michael-jackson-the-long-moonwalk-to-pop-oblivion-1052040.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article6581850.ece http://www.denverpost.com/dontmiss/ci_12693837 http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_35841.aspx http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/midnight_sun/blog/2009/06/michael_jackson_a_brilliant_bu.html http://www.weeklyblitz.net/index.php?id=757 http://www.france24.com/en/20090707-michael-jackson-farewell-stage-set-star-studded-staples-memorial-service http://www.abc15.com/content/entertainment/news/story/Elvis-vs-Michael-who-left-the-bigger-legacy/J0j41hLslEyieSMYv5JhvA.cspx

Doing a comparison between Elvis and Michael based on cultural effect, but states total album sales too.

http://www.bsidenation.com/gpage2.html

Also I'd like to ask if it's true or not /according to the aforementioned wiki page to it/ that the website to the The Daily Telegraph is www.telegraph.co.uk, if so then they state 750 million copies sold and not 300million nor 350 million. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5643158/Singer-Michael-Jackson-dies-in-Los-Angeles-aged-50.html - I tried to post only reliable sources and to avoid biased fan sites or gossip sites. Based on these sources /CNN, NBC, BBC, Times, ABC15, Sony etc./ please change the data of 370 million album sales to 750million+ /since he's STILL selling albums and we do not have new and current data since his sudden and unexpected death/.

IF we are to stick to 350 million for Michael Jackson:

Also I'd like to get a source for the Elvis sales and the Beatles sales since the WSJ states 1billion+ album sales are not possible /for The Beatles/. They also state that such high numbers might mean song sales /if so then even with the best will dividing the 1 billion with 2 would give a more accurate number of 500 million+/.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

The article does not name Elvis but does state that Michael Jackson's record sales come second only to The Beatles. That sentence would mean that:

1. is The Beatles /possibly with about 500 million+ albums sold/

2. Michael Jackson /possibly with albums sold somewhere between 200-350 million, the WSJ calculated 205 million and accepted the calculations of Guillaume Vieira who calculated between 345-386 million with albums, singles and digital downloads included/.

I add a site link where you can see the estimates of Vieira for MJ's album sales /could not find his site/:

http://www.hitsville.org/2009/07/12/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-worldwide-record-sales%E2%80%94jackson-the-beatles-pink-floyd-and-more/

3. Elvis /possibly under the album sales of Michael Jackson but accurate or estimated number not stated not in this article nor in other articles on the WSJ site/.

4. ABBA /?/ - possibly with album sales of about 100 million as stated in the beginning of the article /could be 150 million, since they only say that their sales are closer to 100 million in the beginning of the article/.

I'd also like to note that this site is no fan-site to any artist, thus we should be unbiased and reliable, and consider every reliable source for every artist not only to some.

I ask a big change on the list for at least the first 4 artist if not all of them, obviously the first 2 spots are biased and bloated numbers /or so WSJ thinks and I do hope they'll have an article discussing it/ the ABBA sales are at minimum slightly overestimated, the Michael Jackson sales might be accurate with 350 million but because of the placement and overestimates of other artist's sales, it is placed at the wrong place.

Other request would be that sources that state 2 different numbers should be considered unreliable /example: CNN also states 300 million copies for MJ and 750 million thus they are not reliable, the same goes for The Daily Telegprah/. --Taru29 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

elvis and beatles sales are inflated too
i see you have downgraded some artists while keeping elvis and beatles at 1 billion plus. the truth is their sales are overinflated too. i sense a bias that you were eagerly looking for ways to put artists like michael jackson, bing crosby, and cliff richard down the list. i notice you are looking at some figures from riaa or uk sales, but that is a flawed approach to measuring worldwide sales for handpicked artists. in fact, some artists sell the vast majority outside the us and uk while others sell mostly within those countries, so the approach is not reliable. i do feel their numbers were probably higher than reported, but if you heading in that direction, i hope you are equally as eager in looking for more reasonable figures for elvis and the beatles as well. but i do hope you don't continue using us and uk sales as the basis for measuring worldwide sales. Vpuliva (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I use databases of dozens of countries around the world (more than what I have within the discussion section number 2) to study sales, I don't just remove artists without a reason, and this is most definitely not handpicking. I only remove those artists whose figures within sources are outrageously inflated, whose figures in no way correspond with their actual sales. Unfortunately, we still have many others on the list and I will get to them all. Michael Jackson currently is where his actual sales suggest that he needs to be, I have very carefully studied Jackson's sales through his certifications (which by the way I'm going to do also with Elvis and The Beatles) before I came to the conclusion that the 750 million was simply a marketing/promotional tool which was tossed in just a couple of years ago by his record company in hopes that they could bring his fame back. --Harout72 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't believe in the majority of sales figures by these artists including michael jackson among several others. I do feel however, from your comments in discussion and in the edits, that you are more eager to downgrade some more than others, as in the repeated comments on michael jackson. It seems like you have your own interpretation of sales figures and look around for sources to fit. You may or may not be accurate, but since there is no official worldwide tally, it seems odd that you feel you are in a position to change figures as you like. With such an uncertain topic, the best thing, which may not be the most accurate, is to go with what MOST sources say (which does usually go along with their recording companies). But if you continue to do what you're doing, I truly hope that you aren't using the article to your liking and I hope then that you downgrade the other extremely exaggerated figures, including those of presley and the beatles.Vpuliva (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please avoid criticising Harout, he does a great job maintaining this article, and i've been watching for months - his methods are always fine. You come here and say you "don't believe in the majority of sales figures by these artists" - where's your proof? What gives your opinion merit? Complaining can be done by anyone, action is another thing. If you want to help improve the page, go for it, but persuading and accusing is not helping us here. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 04:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vpuliva, I have already explained to you above that I will analyze the sales of all those artists the figures of whose look inflated. Unfortunately, I cannot get to them all over night as it takes hours sometimes to study the sales of those especially, who have released and sold countless records throughout their careers (The Beatles for example, took me two+ hours this afternoon. Their sales; by the way, stands around 500 million worldwide). My purpose is not to spend my time and effort on discrimination, if that's what you're driving at with this statement I do feel however, from your comments in discussion and in the edits, that you are more eager to downgrade some more than others. By the way, Michael Jackson's figure (350 million) that we currently have, is as correct as it can ever get. --Harout72 (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, kiac. I also think recording companies have a tendency to exaggerate an artist's sales numbers - I was agreeing that recording companies tend to exaggerate numbers for most recording artists - which is what the old figures tended to reflect. But since there is no official worldwide tally, I feel it is odd that someone feels they are in some special position to change the numbers. The newer numbers may actually be more accurate or might not be, but again there's no official tally, so it's possible these can come from anywhere. I still feel, by looking at the nature of the past comments, discussion, and actions, that there is bias in placing more priority in the changing of some artists' numbers more than others. Again, I truly hope I am wrong and that all artists are being approached the same way with no bias. But since you suggested I help, it will be beneficial if, in great detail, there is an explanation or listing of the exact methodology in coming up with these numbers placed on the article page, even if there has to be a separate explanation for each artist, which might be the case.

And kiac, my opinion is just my opinion that I am expressing in the discussion page. Harout and maybe you as well are expressing possible opinions as facts on the article page. The 'new' list would probably fit better in a personal page. A more public domain like this one would be better off with numbers that most sources state, even if they are less accurate. Or maybe you can come up with a wiki article called harout's list of best-selling music artists. And as far as taking action myself, I mentioned it before that since there is no official worldwide tally, no one, including myself, is really in any position to guess or estimate numbers. Again, I suggested using the recording labels' numbers regardless of their accuracies, but I know you would just undo my edits. Vpuliva (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think I am here just changing numbers as I wish then we have nothing further to discuss, because this discussion that you are carrying on is quite unproductive. It's obvious that you have no practical suggestions to offer. The fact is that it's possible to study the sales and know where the actual sales of an artist stands and selecting the most logical figure claimed by highly regarded sources is the best way to go here. Record labels' claims have no business here on this page as they are willing to claim anything that can help the sales of their artists' upcoming materials.--Harout72 (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow now record company figures have no bearing here because HAROUT72 said so. Absolute craziness. The majority of worldwide sales are NOT reported in any way but from the record companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrparissm (talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 the hypocrisy is really baffling to me. In an earlier post you state: "the articles must come either from highly regarded news services or highly regarded music related sources such as MTV, VH1, articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music or Universal Music are acceptable as well.--User:Harout72|Harout72 User talk:Harout72 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)"

I have provided a link to an OFFICIAL statement from Sony Music: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE= MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. --Mrparissm (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please learn the difference between Labels and Major Record Companies. I never said Labels are acceptable. And yes, majority of worldwide sales is being reported. And also many sources copy sales from each other without doing any research themselves. We currently have two highly reliable sources CNN and The Daily Telegraph for Jackson both of which claim 300-350 million, and that's the bracket where his actual sales falls. --Harout72 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony Music is not a Major Record company? Are you kidding me? You specifically state MTV is a reliable source I provided a link where they state Michael Jackson is at 750+ Million records. I hate to break this to you but I would think MTV would know FAR MORE about his sales then YOU would. Stop cherry picking sources. My sources are JUST AS RELIABLE as yours. And there are HUNDREDS that state 750+ Million than your TWO that state 350 Million. His ranking needs to be 750+ Million wether you like it or not. End of story.

harout72 cant argue with this here is proff that michael sold 750 million http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world

--Mrparissm (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mrparissm, if you are going to carry a competent argument please read all I am saying very carefully as I am beginning to think you don't have the ability to do so. First, Sony Music is not a label, it's a major record company. Second, I never suggested that the use of major record companies are unacceptable, but rather I said that Michael's record company has used the 750 million figure as a promotional tool to bring his fame back. And if we are going to have a list of this kind as List of best-selling music artists is, we need to have figures which actually correspond with artists' true sales for the sake of credibility. What good is this page if every single fanatic is going to want to see their favorite artist at the top of the list. That's won't be a credible list, that's a fan page. In addition, don't be so sure that news services or music related establishments don't copy the figures from each other without willing to do their homework. --Harout72 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout: Again, this is a public domain - the best thing to do is to go with what is most public, regardless of the accuracy. So what has a place - only your interpretations? I offered plenty of suggestions that you can easily follow - why can't you put in extensive detail on the article your methodologies for arriving at the numbers? That should not be a problem, unless you have some incredible inconsistencies. Why is it that we have to just trust you? You are not the owner of this page. And look at what your actions are causing - I can only imagine the stress that is building up inside of you - and it's all your fault - you go with what you want and are acting like a virtual dictator of this page preventing anyone else from even editing or discussing. I also suggested you make your own page - why is it that you can not do this simple thing? Let me add - maybe you will see some interest in this - make a page of your own separate from a public domain like this one - when you are satisfied with your results, contact a rock magazine and see if they will publish it. Then later you can even create a separate wiki page mirroring your webpage and link directly to it. In this way, you can act however you please and no one will bother you.

Your actions are highly unprofessional and even corrupt. There are several people and organizations around the world who have been keeping track of sales to their best abilities for several years, if not decades, longer than you. Even they will not take over a public domain - they know there is no official worldwide tally, so no one, including them or you, has any business putting up their figures, regardless of being accurate or not. I kept telling you that regardless of the accuracies, this is a public domain and we must go with what is most public. If you do not like it this way, again you should make your own page. It is ridiculous that you are claiming virtual ownership of this page. Vpuliva (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am just curious Vpuliva, do you always advise people while simultaneously using first-grader's sarcasm. Yes you are right, I am not the owner of this page, and I never stated anything of that kind. Why do you only have to trust me? You don't have to, therefore, we've been having this three-day long unproductive discussion. Yes, there are organizations who have been keeping track of sales to their best abilities and that's exactly what I am providing you with above. I never said I have an official tally for Jackson, I am only offering the analysis as to whether the published figures offered by news services is close to the actual sales of the artist. By the way, why don't you make your own page as you advise me to do so, you could create a nice page, I am sure, with lots of artists with healthy looking sales figures, that way you might even get chocolates and flowers from most of the people here as they all like to see their favorite artists with not necessarily logical but blatant figures. --Harout72 (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that some sort of comeback that I am using a first-grader's sarcasm? Yes, you are not the owner of the page, so don't act like you are. You are causing so much trouble - look at all of the discussions going on - and indeed it is because you are acting like the dictator of this page. I know I don't trust you among others and I would therefore like the article reverted back to what it was before, but you're not letting anyone do that. You are not in any position whatsoever to take over a page and put your interpretation of the sales figures. I kept saying it and I'll say it again - this is a public domain - we have to go with what most sources say - not with the 'analysis' of a single person. Why should I go make a page elsewhere - I never wanted to make a page of sales - again all I suggested was we revert back. Because you are acting like a ruler of this page, you should go make a page of your own elsewhere - then no one will disagree with you. I'm trying to help you out, so you can 'get chocolates and flowers' - you don't have first-grade sarcasm? And that says something that even you admit most of the people on this page don't agree with your grand plans. Let the majority decide even if they are not accurate. Again, even you agree - this is not your page. Vpuliva (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stopsign sing.png

Please stop there, both of you; discuss the article, not the person. Go and get yourself a cup of tea, and have a read of Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I'm not looking to blame anyone here, to say anyone has done anything wrong yet, or anything else - I'm just trying to stop things before it gets out of control.  Chzz  ►  07:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to oppose the 1 billion+ sale number for Elvis since I've searched RIAA and since I cannot keep in mind if I saw that certain album before with any sale figure or not I usually just added the number /except if it was right under it or above it like: certified: platinum, next same album certified:2x multi-platinum, if it was so obvious I kept the higher number and neglected the lower but if they had different realese dates for the album then added both/ so I'm sure I over calculated a bit but I still cannot bring together the 1 billion number.

At some places I could find if the "release" was an album or a single, some places it did not state and I'm no fan I cannot tell, so where I know singles are included too I'll state at other places they might or might not 'cause it was not stated what it is only "Title -Artist -Certification", if I know there are no singles in it I'll state that too.

'''Based on RIAA, US sales for Elvis albums and singles: 180.5 million BPI: currently no searchable database, will check later IFPI Germany: 1.1 million SNEP: 2 million CRIA: 2.5 million ARIA: 910,000 /albums and singles together from 97-09, couldn't find earlier stats/ NVPI: 300,000 IFPI Sweden: 220,000 SwissCharts: 200,000 /from 89-09, there have been no singles listed only albums/ IFPI Finland: 147,000 /from 53-09/ Norway: 2.5m /after realizing at The Beatles search that the Finland and Norway IFPI sites are the same I've made a search and found the Norway site which through 2x platinum for an album, 1x platinum for another one and 1x gold for a 3rd one, certification limits were not found therefore I counted them as 1m and 0.5m but they could be way LESS, totals corrected accordingly though I doubt they are indeed 2.5m/ Mexico /Amprofon/:550,000 Brazil ABPD: 300,000'''

Thats it, together it will be: 190.5 million. Until the UK site puts back there database I'll guess he could have sold about /and now I'll say a rather overblown number/ 50 million there /all albums and singles sold there/ but I'll check and update the number once the site is back.

Now then 190.5+50 would be: 240.5 million, and this doesn't include small countries or Asia /those that barely have sales, and the inaccurate Asian market/. For the small countries and Asia I can offer up /without knowing the data and I suppose we'll never know, but IF someone has a stat for FULL EU sale - meaning all countries here including the small ones- and a separate accurate FULL Asia one please link it in here/ about a 100 million copies.

240.5+100= 340.5 million.....that's far from a 1 billion+, though 1 billion+ "units" sold are usually stated and units can be song too / meaning of unit from webster: "3 a : a single thing, person, or group that is a constituent of a whole" for example a song that was released on an album that way part of the album as a whole thing /.

I request an investigation of this 1 billion+ number /and a link to the official statement from the record label that Elvis sold 1 billion+ albums and singles and not units, also links to certificates proving bigger sales/ and IF we cannot prove higher number that this /or the one that I'll have once the UK site is back, and after we have an accurate estimate for Asia/ then lower the 1 billion+ to this number or to the highest we can prove with certificates.

UPDATE As Harout72 pointed out that some data cannot be recollected there fore I'll calculate the 150m /the 50m+100m I just gave to Elvis without certifications/ to be donated for the unrecoverable data. There fore we are still lacking the UK and Asian+small country market.

So As I said in my answer to Harout72 I'm expecting no more than 20m for UK for Elvis so 340.5+20=360m and since I have an additional 100m for The Beatles I'll give another 100m for Elvis too.

360+100= 460m. This is still far from 1 billion, and /apparently/ shows how The Beatles sales are worse documented then Elvis sales /remember the Elvis sales are poorly documented 'cause there been no certification system at some places/ yet the official story of The Beatles outselling Elvis seems to be unprovable BECAUSE of poor documentation of The Beatles sales while the Elvis sales seems rather well documented and even this way about 540m album sales are missing /and no it was NOT sold in those small countries with population under 100m nor was it sold in China or Japan/.

Tomorrow I'll investigate The Beatles 1 billion+ number.

--Taru29 (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Taru, surely Presley's worldwide figure is not 1 billion, that's as outrageously overblown as Michael Jackson's 750m is. But, you have to consider one major fact when calculating Presley's sales through his certifications. Most of the databases that we have available whether European or South American (Brazil, Mexico) countries offer only those certifications that have been issued after they've established their certification based markets. In other words, we have no way of counting Presley's at least 40-50% of entire sales as he has begun his career and has sold most of his records way before counties like Switzerland (database '89-'09), Sweden (database '87-'08), Brazil (database starting 2001), Mexico (starting 2000) have begun issuing certifications. So we have to make our decision as far as Presley's sales go based on US, UK, Canada, Germany (for records after 1975), France (for records after 1975) as these are the countries the databases of which are going to show Elvis' records-sales. As I mentioned earlier, his sales is definitely not going to get anywhere the 1 billion mark, but it's possible that it will stretch as far as 400-450 million. I have already done the research for The Beatles, their sales has been quite strong almost everywhere, but again we are naturally not going to be able to see a lot of their records for the same reason as it's in the case of Elvis as The Beatles have begun quite early too, not as early as Presley though. The total of The Beatles should come close to 500-550m.--Harout72 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I do understand that they do not have certification before a certain period BUT there are countries where The Beatles and Elvis couldn't have had sales before the 80' regardless of the existence of certificates at that time /and I suppose they had certification from the 90' upwards/.

For example I'm from a county where until the late 80's /if I'm not misinformed until 88, round 83 some leaked in but very few/ we were not allowed to bring in ANY foreign merchandise that included vinyls /also were not allowed to travel abroad/. Therefore the fact that my country has poor certification system from before the 80' makes no difference since we only were allowed to give certificates to, and we only listened to music from inside and not outside /I have a huge collection a LP from that time frame and barely some are US or UK artist, I have no Beatles LP 'cause you couldn't get one here and only 1 Elvis from the middle 80's, everything before that is from my country or Russia/.

No matter how you calculate it, /see I gave 150 million copies WITHOUT certification, let's call them the copies that were not registered because - 1. there have been no certification system 2. they were not allowed in to the country 3.poor system still today and thus we do not know how many were sold there/ when the UK database is up I add everything I find to this 338 million and trust me I'll be surprised if he sold more than 20 million there, and then we can still give unnamed amount and still cannot get til 500m unless of course we try to say that in his case it makes no difference if its registered or not /and that would be something I already done with the 150m I already gave him to get to 338m, no matter how I try I cannot force myself to believe he only sold 700m copies when bigger part of the world either did not have a certification system OR been introvert and had NO outside market/ you will never make it to 1 billion. The list should be believable /sorry 1 billion is not, I'm not the only one who says that, WSJ says that 1 billion is impossible for album and single sales, but for songs its ok, also they said that about The Beatles without mentioning Elvis in their top 2 list/.

'''I came up with a new idea though /since I have no problem with the 1 billion unit BUT that's not albums/. Why not make the list more "accurate"? Let's add "unit" and "album sale based on certifications"? This way we could keep the 1 billion AND make it believable too /if we can get about 500million for Elvis WITH certificate that's believable same goes for The Beatles, if we stay under 300m for The Beatles and Elvis we add 100-150m for the uncounted unregistered sales and that would just about make it realistic BUT we should also add this "calculation trick" as a note in the text explaining how the sales are hard to track before the 80'/.'''

--Taru29 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, but record sales have never been strong in developing countries, even now. When calculating sales using the databases, one needs to include sales coming out of developed countries mainly. And all developed countries, I assure you, which didn't have certification based markets have printed most, if not all of Elvis' or The Beatles' records, so the records have sold without being certified in those countries. The sales of the songs have never been as strong as albums', and those songs that have sold well, I am sure you noticed within the RIAA's database, have all been certified. It's the same else where.


 * As for your suggestion, we can't use research based on databases as it's a WP:OR. As I mentioned earlier in my discussion above, I too believe that the 1 billion for both Elvis and The Beatles are awfully exaggerated. And we don't have to stick to these spurious figures, we simply can do our research and locate highly reliable sources supporting the figures that correspond with our research. And have a footnote, briefly explaining that "the previous figures have been updated due to research which strictly ruled out the 1 billion for Elvis and The Beatles, 750 for Jackson". We could post the research in the discussion page with as much explanation as possible.--Harout72 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles Certification based sale numbers:

RIAA:161m BPI: currently no searchable database, will check later IFPI Germany: 8.9m SNEP: 5m CRIA: 11.9 million ARIA: 910,000 /albums and singles together from 97-09, couldn't find earlier stats, and oddly it's the same number as the Elvis sales for this country/ NVPI: 325,000 IFPI Sweden: - /odd isn't it? seems like they were really closed in/ SwissCharts: 475,000 /from 89-09, there have been no singles listed only albums/ IFPI Finland: 154,420 Norway: none? /the link to the Norway IFPI on the top of the page is wrong, it's the same as the one above a.k.a. Finland, the Norway one can be found through Google and has no results for the Beatles, certifications starting from 93/ Mexico /Amprofon/:200,000 Brazil ABPD: 650,000

In total:189.5m I'm still waiting for the UK database, and I'm expecting high numbers since they are from UK.

I furthermore add the 150m I added for Elvis /as Harout72, some data are not retrievable because of the aforementioned reasons/ so for BOTH Elvis and The Beatles the 150m are for those sales and the U sales will come on top of it +the impossible to tell Asian + small country data.

189.5+150= 339.5m, I'm excepting UK sales round 50 million /because they are British/ 339.5m+50m = 389.5m, and so we can add for the uncountable markets 100m and we get 389.5+100= 489.5m. That's about 490m

"By October 1972, the Beatles’ worldwide sales total stood at 545 million units. To date The Beatles record sales are over 1 billion units worldwide." It feels believable that the record sales went up from 489m to 545m maybe even to 600m but over that is kinda hard to believe, for unit sales it's acceptable /ringtones, mp3, dvds, etc./.

"By August 1966, the Beatles had sold 150 million records worldwide" The last time we see the word "record" instead of "unit". 490m is more than 2x150m, so it's indeed believable BUT I also would like to point out how Units are not the same as records or albums /1 billion would be 6x150m, I have doubts/ As a note for unit number.

On a site I've found a data /sorry it's no Beatles nor Elvis example its an MJ example, but it does give a unique view to unit measurement/. "The Ultimate Collection" for MJ was a box set with 4CDs and 1 DVD in it. Soundscan calculated about 83,000 copies sold in US /meaning boxes/ and statistics stated additional 500,000 copies worldwide but they worth 2 million units! /I personally vote on it that there never been more than 500,000 since it was limited and 583,000 sounds fishy, so I'll count with a more round numbers once with 500.000 and once with 600.000 since I do not know the exact number of boxes that were given out/.

The interesting thing in this is that we could say they counted the discs in the box-set but as we can see /if we count with 500.000/ then they did not include the DVD in their unit calculation.

If we include the DVD then there should be only 400.000 released boxes. If there were 600.000 boxes sold then the 2 million unit came out as 1 unit = 3.3 disc. This is a really odd measurement BUT this example shows how units have nothing to do with albums, box-sets, dvds or anything of that bigger volume.

Because of this ranking some people based by their unit sales and other based on their album sales/ which is carefully calculated with issued certification+ the not recorded sales+ the unmeasurable market including Asia and small countries/ is simply not FAIR.

Unit: Total annual unit sales (CDs, music videos, mp3s) /from wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry /

My calculations DO NOT include DVDs, Music video sales, mp3s, only CDs.

Once again I request another column inserted into the table for "estimated unit sales", where the 1 billion+ /or even more/ can be listed, BUT the list should be about certification based data since those are more accurate and can be counted /since we cannot count with unit as the aforementioned example shows we have no idea how 500.000 or 483.000 or 400.000 or 600.000 or 583.000 released and possibly sold "box-set" with 4 audio cd and 1 dvd becomes 2m units/.

I suggest estimates to be counted for artist where we only have certification based album sales exist /a small research help determine how many physical disc were in an album example: albums that were double discs/ so we can have unit sales too /so the sale number of an album which contained 2 discs should be doubled and added to the unit number which starts from the recorded, certification based album sales and in the end we get an estimated unit number/.

Also a note should be made in the beginning of the list that explains the "unit" stats, also we could color the own calculated unit number differently to show that those were calculated by us since we couldn't find any unit number from any reliable source.

--Taru29 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 we're talking about 2 different things. Yes I saw that singles didn't sell well, when I say "song" I do not mean singles, for example to the best of my knowledge mp3 downloads do not get certified with RIAA. Those are songs too, as well as ringtones /and apparently even in a small country ringtones have a HUGE market, I'm sure more song were downloaded from every artist then albums sold from them/.

Also I never said units are only for songs /WSJ asserts that 1 billion units are for 1 billion songs, I suppose they include advertisement with the song behind it too/. I do not know what unit is truly standing for, but I do believe this list is highly inaccurate because at some part it list units /and they are backed up with reports of course/ and other part are records or albums sold /which are also backed up with reports, sometimes even 2 different figures are backed with the same source but with different articles, sometimes only 1 day apart from each other/.

It would be more fair if the list either only had the unit count or only the album count /or both but strictly stated what it is/ but having 2 type of data used and mixing which one is listed for whom is rather wrong.

--Taru29 (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
Hi Michael Jackson is listed at 300+ Million records when in actuality he is at 750+ Million records sold. So he should be in the group with The Beatles and Elvis. Here's a link to my source: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

go here for sales http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.34.136 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone could correct this that would be great, I'm a new member and can't correct semi-protected pages. Thanks!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrparissm (talk • contribs) 08:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the editsemiprotected template. Please continue to participate in the above discussion with kiac and reach consensus. tedder (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing about Jackson's current 350 million figure that needs to be corrected. This is what his actual sales looks like and we have two very reliable sources at the moment, CNN and The Daily Telegraph (both of which support the 300-350 million figure) none of which is any less reliable than the sources the 750 million figure could be supported by .--Harout72 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/

Please read my post before, I believe the Elvis sales, The Beatles sales, ABBA sales should be lowered according to the aforementioned WSJ article and accordingly the list should be rewritten. Beatles first, MJ second, Elvis /possibly/ third, ABBA fourth /unless there's someone who sold more than 100 million but less then Elvis who could be around 300 million/--Taru29 (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson (again)
A request was made to edit this article, changing the figures for Michael Jackson to 750m. The sources were what we would normally consider reliable sources. I see the discussion above, but I see no reason why this information should not be added to the article.

It is also worth noting that out featured article Michael Jackson asserts the figure of 750m - and that article has undergone considerable scrutiny.

The amendment was reverted with this edit.

Thus, we need to discuss it, and try to reach a consensus.

Please say below whether or not you think that this edit should be made, giving brief reasons.

Thanks.  Chzz  ►  20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

here is proff that michael sold 750 million http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwordpass (talk • contribs) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In order to know where Jackson's actual sales stands one must study his sales through the help of certifications, especially those that Jackson has gathered in larger music markets. And that's how I came to the conclusion that the 750 million figure was simply a promotional/marketing tool that Jackson's record company used a couple of years ago to bring his fame back to the level where it was before mid 90s.
 * Let's look at some numbers together.


 * Jackson's total US sales stands at about 77 million according to his US certifications. This figure; however, needs to be inflated by 10% to include those records which have not reached a certification level, so his actual US sales should be about 85-90 million.
 * Canadian sales is just 4.5 million according his certifications and again let's add the 10% to cover those records which have not reached a certification level, and we are looking at about 5 million in Canada.
 * German sales stands at 10.3 million with the 10% it's 11.3 million.
 * In France, he's looking at about 5.3 million, and with the 10% it's about 5.8 million.
 * In Switzerland, his sales from '89-09 stand just around the corner of 900,000, with the 10%, it's about 1 million.
 * In The Netherlands, his figure's 1.5 million plus the 10% 1.7 million give or take.
 * In Australia, he's looking at about 4.3 million (I used three different pages to calculate the Australian figures 1, 2, 3), and the 10%, and it's just about 4.8 million.
 * In Sweden, from '87-'08 he has sold only about 400,000 records, and with the usual 10%, we'll have 450,000 units.
 * UK's database is currently under construction, however, I've used UK's database before to look at Jackson's sales and it's just about 15 million.
 * In the entire European Continent, Jackson from '96-'09 has sold only 11 million albums according to the Europe's certifications, and it'll be not more than 12-13 million with the 10% addition.
 * As you may notice, we don't have to go over the sales each country in the world has recorded as most countries including the 95% of the Asian and South/Central American countries have very small music markets (in fact so small that IFPI doesn't have a listing for most of them), the combination all of which may just come close to the size of three larger European markets (German, UK, French) or in the best case scenario, they might come close to the size of US market. The only important market in Asia Pacific is the Japanese market which, unfortunately, does not offer a searchable database for Certifications at the moment, but I would assume that Jackson's total sales there is not going to surpass the 10-15 million boarder. So my conclusion is that the 750 million for Jackson is at least 100% inflated (350 million X 100%=700 million). Consequently, the 350 million figure published by CNN  or 300 million published by The Daily Telegraph  are as logical as it may ever get for Jackson at the moment. I hope what I covered here is satisfactory as far as his sales goes.--Harout72 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

you are wrong beaucse you are saying cnn is a more relabile source than michael jackson offical site or sony records

please read the whole article http://www.michaeljackson.com/ie/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.34.136 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember that first party sources are not accepted, SONY/BMG executives on occasion have stated that Elvis has sold 2.5 billion records worldwide. The Michael Jackson official website cannot be used a source, neither can the Elvis website or The Beatles website. They perhaps maybe used as secondary sources to support indepedent statements provided by other trustworthy sources. This has been mentioned before, read before posting irrelevant links. JFonseka (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh I've been through this over and over again. Harout72 here is completely power hungry. If a news article does not go with his pre-concieved bias he won't use them.

Sony's Official Statement about Michael Jackson's Death and his sales are here: http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson/

Official Sony Press Release about his "This is it" movie coming out in October: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-10-2009/0005075007&EDATE=

And finally MTV.com SPECIFICALLY states he has sold over 750 Million and they cite several sources: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml

3 VERY reliable sources. And these are the most recent. I would rather go with verifiable and reliable sources that KNOW his totals rather than some internet poster trying to guess at them. His total needs to be updated. It's been listed at 750 Million for like 2 years now. And Harout72 felt fit to change it with ABOSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to the contrary. What started all this is Harout72 changed MJ's total a few days ago to 350+ Million. Someone needs to change him back to 750+ Million. --Mrparissm (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Look Harout72 this is not "Harout72's List of Best Selling artists". SONY would know better than ANYONE how many Records Michael Jackson has sold worldwide. This list should be comprised of OFFICIAL statements. Bottom Line. Whether you agree with the figures or not is irrelevant because you don't have first hand knowledge of his sales and Sony does. Hist total needs to be changed to 750+ Million.

--Mrparissm (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sony's executives release varying statements over the years when it comes to the sales of Elvis and Michael Jackson, constantly inflating the numbers. Whereas EMI, the group that handles The Beatles records have consistently understated The Beatles sales to the point that they have been sued for royalty amounts not paid. This is one of the many reasons that we cannot use the record companies themselves as they may not give true statements. As Harout has said, and also provided evidence there is no way the sales can add up to 750 million. JFonseka (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please save your energy as I have seen outrageously inflated figures coming from reliable sources that I still can't believe. If I don't try as hard as I am trying to keep this page straight, this page will be filled with inflated figures within a period of one week and eventually be worthless to keep. Is this what we are trying to make out of this list? I am not. I believe the figure of 350 million is a plausible achievement and to be very honest with you, I really don't see how having the 750 million is going to make things better or more credible. --Harout72 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes the list more credible because that is what EVERYONE else is reporting. What does it look like when everyone else is reporting 750 Million yet you want to change it to whatever you see fit? You are now calling Sony Music liars? That makes this list uncredible. The OFFICIAL numbers are what should be used. Michael Jackson was and still is a HUGE international star. He is in the guiness book of world records as the most successful entertainer. He broke records for the largest tour TWICE. First with his Bad tour and then again with his HIStory tour (which didn't even come to the U.S. and he still broke records with it!) There is no way you could go to those websites and tally up his total sales from the 80s to now. You have OFFICIAL number from the horses mouth! That is what needs to be used. And THAT is what would make this list credible!

--Mrparissm (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mrparissm, please understand. There are no official numbers when it sometimes comes to promotions and marketing, that's why record companies hand pick their people, who regardless of the situation are able to market their artists in any way that might help the artists' sales. Understand that I have absolutely nothing to gain or lose by 350 million or 750 million, I am simply trying my best to keep the list credible. I have put in hours and hours of work to come to this conclusion, I understand that you and other fans may be disappointed with the result I have come up with, but believe me, 350m is the maximum that I see for him. I am sure we will soon have some more figures popping up as news services will want to update their figures. And yes, you are right, he is an international star and the 350 million in sales speaks for itself. --Harout72 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout72 here's the flaw in your logic. In the "elvis and beatles sales are inflated too" conversation above between you and Vpuliva, you said you've counted the Beatles sales and they are at 500 Million. That is HALF of what the reported figure is but yet you haven't changed their sales numbers on the list. So why is that? That's because the OFFICIAL numbers are 1 Billion + sales. This list is not about what YOU think, it's about the most reliable sources on the total sales numbers. These record companies know their artists sales better than anyone else. It's laughable that you think you have the power or knowledge to dispute them. I appreciate your efforts in this list but you are COMPLETELY WRONG if you feel you can go agaisnt official numbers from major record companies. You are going down a very slippery slope. None of the sales in the top 20 can be 100% verified by chart tracking. Just as your Beatles numbers only show 500 Million and the official number is 1 Billion. You should RESPECT the official figure for Michael Jackson's numbers just like you respect the official number for The Beatles and Elvis. You are seriously hurting the credibility of this list by cherry picking sources and going against official numbers from Sony themselves. It doesn't get any more clear than that. --Mrparissm (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that The Beatles are going to stay where they currently are on the list? I am going to study the sales of Elvis too, if Elvis' actual sales doesn't come close to 1 billion as the sales of The Beatles shows it doesn't, then the section of "500-1 billion" will be removed altogether, as I will place them both within a new section "500 million or more records". By the way, did you even look at Jackson's sales that I have provided above? Numbers don't lie. Where do you think he might have sold as many as 750 million records? I have covered all the major economically well developed territories where the sales are the strongest. --Harout72 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. There is NO WAY that you are anyone here can verify these numbers but the record companies themselves! A lot of times record companies do NOT recertify their totals on these charts especially for older artists and albums. Secondly those sales charts do not 100% represent his international sales. I understand that you are skeptical which is fine. But you can NOT rewrite his total sales in history because you want to. It baffles me that you somehow view this as fair. It's not. You HAVE to use the most credible and knowledgable sources. And in this case it is SONY MUSIC, NOT what you yourself believes. Do you understand what a slippery slope you are going down? This is not "Harout72's list of top selling artists." The majority of press releases and official statements from Sony, MTV and other trusted sources state 750+ Million.

--Mrparissm (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also support the semi-protection to keep the figures at 750 million. While I may not agree with the figure myself, there are FAR more sources and more reputable sources that go along with that figure than with the self-proclaimed page ruler's figure. As this is a public domain, the figure that has the most sources should be the one to put up on the article page. I also support putting back up the other artists that were kicked off and/or downgraded regardless of what the 'owner' or even I think of those previously posted figures. No single person should be ruling over this page - if they don't like it that way, they should go make their own personal page elsewhere. Vpuliva (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm missing the point? I wasn't aware you were making one, Mrparissm. First of all, I am not using any charts as you may call it, they are databases. Second of all, it's obvious that you haven't even glanced at what I've written above as you state above :Secondly those sales charts do not 100% represent his international sales. Where do you think the most trusted sources including CNN here get their figures from? Either the record companies or they often have people who study sales using the same pattern as I used above. And sometimes they don't do neither as they simply copy figures from each other hoping that the original publisher has done its homework, and those are the sources that you've been drawn to. I have to tell you, I am beginning to get the feeling that this discussion is going to turn into a long and unproductive one. So why not we simply stop here since it's clear that I am never going to convince you and it's clear that you will never be able to see what I'm driving at as there is only one thing in your mind and that's seeing your favorite artist at the top of the list.--Harout72 (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment At the beginning of this discussion, I asked for brief, policy-based reasoning. Wikipedia is not actually interested in the truth, just what is verifiable. If multiple reliable sources state the figure of 750m, and there are few if any sources that dispute the figure, then we are in no position to disagree with them. Adding up figures ourselves is original research.


 * I'm hoping that we can reach some form of consensus here; to that end, it would be most useful if people could briefly state whether they approve or disapprove of the suggested edit, with brief, policy-based reasoning. The issue at hand is this specific one edit; discussions about other edits (e.g. Beatles, Elvis) should be in their own section.


 * Let's all remember to assume good faith - we are all trying to make Wikipedia a bit better, so there is no point in climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.  Chzz  ►  05:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Chzz I believe you have made some errors, adding up figures is not original research, original research is getting those figures in the first place. The addition of figures came about due to a dispute, I am also interested in many of the sources, a quick google search indicates the most credible source for this figure is mtv, with the rest tending to be small-time online newspapers. CNN however and the Daily Telegraph are two credible and large sources of news that have not reported anything close to 750 million, it is by the standard of credibility, with secondary evidence of sales additions, and past reports of a few years ago citing less than 400 million sales have we come to the conclusion of 350 million sales, it is cumulative evidence supported primarily by two major news outlets, and evidence collated from querying official sales databases. Accusing Harout of "original research" for adding numbers is laughable. The primary evidence, and the most credible evidence given remains CNN and The Daily Telegraph. JFonseka (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The figure for Jackson's numbers should be reverted as per Chzz's explanation about verifiabliity over truth. In a page like this the correct figure to go with is the highest one regularly cited by reliable sources. I personally think that the 750mil figure is most likely untrue and inflated, however I think most all other artists cited on this list suffer from this as well; The notion that the Beatles or Elvis sold over a billion records is most certainly ludicrous - that number corresponds to about 1 person in 7 on the planet earth having a Beatles record (including the developing world). However I support those numbers being on this list as they are verifiable in being widely published by reliable sources - whether or not those figures stand up to intensive scrutiny is beyond the scope of wikipedia. We should not forget that the standard of wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. In all this discussion to pinpoint the actual record sales (compiling data from different regions, making lists, scrutinizing record keeping procedures of times past) we invariably perform original research which is strictly forbidden. If we were to scrutinize the figures of most any other artist on this list we would certainly find the figures to be greatly or even radically inflated - so to apply this process only to select musicians makes the measuring stick we use uneven. The only way to maintain an even measuring stick for all artists is to apply the largest number regularly cited by reliable sources - and fortunately this measuring stick is also the one most in-line with wikipeda policy. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a mistake Solid State, and contrary to common sense. If a few years ago if he was being cited at around 300 - 400 million records sold and then last year 750 million there is something highly questionable. Whether or not Elvis and The Beatles have sold 1 billion is being investigation. The number does not necessarily correspond to 1 out of 7 people owning a Beatles record since that would assume that everyone who has bought a Beatles record has only one bought one record, furthermore considering much of the older artists entire catalogue has switched over from various forms of Vinyls to Cassettes and CD's it's worth taking into note. There is nothing to suggest The Beatles haven't sold well in the developing world, if anything, lack of data perhaps exists for sales in the developing world. This does not imply lack of sales, a misguided conclusion. You have reverted harouts edits under the guise that no original research is allowed, however his research consists of collecting data from sources, not doing the actual research, therefore you have incorrectly reverted his edits.

As for MJ's 750 million records sold worldwide, he is listed at around 61.5 million currently on the RIAA database in the USA. Using your logic about the dubious nature of The Beatles having sold in the developing world, it doesn't stand to reason that Michael Jackson's remaining 650+ million sales occurred in the rest of the world. Do not misuse the system citing wikipedia standards incorrectly. JFonseka (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jfonseka you are the one making the mistake. The consensus here (the majority of opinions) agree that we should go with the most cited number. That is 750+ Million.

--Mrparissm (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked it wasn't the majority opinion that decided whether something was correct or incorrect, but evidence. Harout has given plenty of evidence pulled out from the actual sales databases of various countries worldwide along with credible sources, CNN and DT confirming that it's in the 350 million mark. Given that the 750 million figure only came about recently and it was a jump of about 400 - 450 million records from a few years ago (a ridiculous claim), it should be dismissed. Most of the earlier sources for the 750 million figure were not entirely credible either, with plenty of people citing the Michael Jackson website, fan sites, unknown music websites and other dubious websites. CNN is far more credible, and so are the sales databases of the various countries that Harout has pointed out, however it seems none of you have bothered to look at it. The consensus has never been used to decide whether someone is right or wrong, especially when right or wrong can be decided by looking at the evidence, that is common sense, so please don't give me a definition of consensus. JFonseka (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about what's right and wrong this about following Wikipedia's policies as laid out by Chzz. There are several CNN articles that cite the 750 Million number aswell. You can add up numbers from databases all day long those do NOT count as official numbers because they do not account for all of his sales and a lot have not been recertified. The record companies are the only ones that know their artists sales first hand. Who are you to dispute with them? This is absolutely ridiculous. --Mrparissm (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My point in mentioning the Beatles and Elvis was no to indicate that their numbers need to change - indeed I support those numbers on the grounds of verifiability, regardless of whether the information is true. My reverting of Harout's edits on grounds of WP:OR is not a "guise" of any sorts, and I am insulted by this accusation - I was simply trying to make this page conform to Wikipedia policy. Compiling data from different sources, making assumptions to fill in the gaps and analyzing the composite most certainly constitutes original research. The sort of research Harout has performed does defy WP:OR policy as, to quote from the policy, "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" is forbidden. I personally think that the 750mil figure for Jackson is far from true but once again it is widely verifiable from numerous reliable sources. The policy of using of the highest verifiable reliably sourced figure is used on numerous other "highest selling" list throughout wikipedia including List of best-selling albums worldwide. It is the only method consistent with wikipedia policy as editors cant discredit information provided by reliable sources on the grounds that it varies from their own original research. This whole article is chuck full of inaccurate, untrue, yet verifiable numbers to which the page's lead makes explicit note of - to start changing them to reflect the truth as derived from original research is not consistent with wikipedia policy. Solid State Survivor (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sold State, please take a look at the last section of this discussion page, the new section I just added. JFonseka (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to JFonseka: Both CNN and The Daily Telegraph have reported the figure of 750m.
 * "Jackson is estimated to have sold more than 750 million albums in total." - CNN


 * "Jackson has sold more 750 million albums" - The Daily Telegraph

In my opinion, it is perfectly justifiable that someone does further research into reliable sources to support other conflicting reliable sources. Harout never even added the overall total up - because it is not an overall total, yes that's true, it is inconclusive. But it is conclusive in stating that if these dozen or so sales tracking publications (the primary sources, where news services should be getting their figures from) say that it is clearly not even possible that these inflated figures are correct. It is just ignorant to ignore the fact that a dozen of the biggest music markets on this earth would accumulate less than a quarter of the total sales. Using verifiability in this case is not working for me, the mere fact that CNN and The Daily Telegraph claim the figure is perfectly verifiable, because there is conflicting claims by reliable sources, furhter research is required. OR would only be relevant if we were adding those numerous sources into the article, remember this is a talk page based on consensus.

While I'm on the topic of consensus, Mrparissm you should probably give this a read: WP:Consensus. Conensus is not 'decided' by majority vote, but by legitamacy of an argument and policies. Also, repeating someone else's point is not going to get you the results you desire. k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 08:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So TDT and CNN report 750, not 350? I've gone through this whole discussion assuming the other way around. So do any sources report the overall figure of somewhere between 300-400 million? k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Harout, I understand what you say completely! Those numbers probably are inflated but look for yourself: There are 3 different sources reporting that MJs sales are 750 million. Only two have reported that it is 300 million and 350 million; and these two have also stated the number to be 750 million. Therefore, it is much more reliable to say that it is 750 million, regardless of the truth it comes from the most sources and some very reliable sources, as are MTV, CNN, Daily Telegraph, Sony itself, etc. We understand that you may be right on the numbers and that the changes aren't done because of consensus but it is not logical that you leave it at 350 million... Be reasonable. Follow the Wikipedia rules and changes... If sufficient evidence is later found that supports the change BACK to 350 million we will discuss it then, but most of the evidence does lead to 750 million and we must base this page on that, the evidence.

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

alexdow93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdow93 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * CNN reporting the 750 million in March, 2009 and reporting 350 million in June, 2009 here is already a reason enough to believe that all major news services do sometimes copy these figures from each other without doing the research themselves. Therefore, we also have a reason to believe that all of those 750 million figures that the MJ fans seem quite fond of have popped-up to the surface of the earth through putting no effort into looking/counting Jackson's true sales figures. You guys seem quite excited about the 750 million, even though, I see some of you admit that it is an inflated figure. So I suggest, we all patiently wait, because the major news services are very soon going publish articles on Jackson due to his strong recent record sales, and within I am sure they will have the new figures.--Harout72 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not making any sense at all. You can't lump every single source together and say they must have copied from each other. That is beyond the scope of you or Wikipedia to proclaim! This is so exasperating. Can no one else see the hipcrosy is all of this? Michael Jackson has passed away and you guys are singling him out for inflated sales numbers when your ENTIRE LIST IS FULL OF THEM! If you propose that we wait for more news reports than that means Michael Jackson's numbers should be changed BACK TO 750+ Million. Which is what it has been for the past 2 years until YOU changed it a couple days ago! That is the only fair thing to do as that is the most widely reported figure! --Mrparissm (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson vs. The Beatles, Elvis, ABBA, Mouskouri
Harout72, first of all, FYI, only in US according to Nielsen Soundscan (http://www.billboard.com/column/dailynoise/michael-jackson-dave-grohl-supergroup-kristina-1004000617.story#/column/dailynoise/michael-jackson-dave-grohl-supergroup-kristina-1004000617.story) Michael Jackson sold 3,787,000 albums and 7,578,000 tracks in first 5 1/2 weeks after his dead. That is total 11.3 millions only in US and Michael Jackson is still #1 almost everywhere around the world.... So do you know how many records did he sold since 25.06.? FYI last month Michael Jackson has became most certified artist in Australian history, in Germany he became first artist ever with 3 albums with at least 2 million pieces sold etc. etc. In last 7 weeks he broke countless charts and sales' records around the world. If you use certification as a main source who is the best selling artist in the world you will see that Michael Jackson has much bigger certification total around the world than Elvis (excluding US where Elvis is undoubtly #1 solo artist) or ABBA or Nana Mouskouri etc... Of course Elvis is under-certified in many countries but Michael Jackson is also, for example MJ's Thriller is certified in Canada for 2 million vinyls sold in april 1984. That was 25 years ago. In that certification there is no CD's etc. You did Michael Jackson's sales breakdown (btw with wrong numbers because for example you don't count singles in UK etc. and with very funny 10% add lol) and for Elvis or The Beatles or ABBA or Nana Mouskouri you wouldn't do the same, using same method and sources! Hmmmm, why? The World Music Awards annually honors recording artists based on worldwide sales figures provided by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and according to World Music Awards Michael Jackson is the best-selling male recording-artist of all time. On your Harout72's completely incorrect list of best-selling music artists, Michael Jackson is probably only artist with so-so correct figure because MJ as a solo artists really sold at least 350+ million records (albums+singles) which can be tracked with certifications and end-years charts around the world but only, I repeat only prior to his dead and with great sale after his dead you must add (only for now) another 25 million to that 350 million number. But at the end of day your list is completely useless because as I said before for The Beatles and Elvis and ABBA and Nana Mouskouri etc. you use label's inflated numbers and the most funny part is that those numbers are inflated much more than Jackson's 750 million number (which included The Jackson 5/The Jacksons sales also). I am 100% sure that you don't like Michael Jackson and that is the only reason why he became your first and (for now) only big victim on this list (forget Crosby). I would really like to see your ABBA and Mouskouri and Elvis and The Beatles sales breakdown using the same methodology as in Michael Jackson's case. But then there is no ABBA & Mouskouri in 300 million category and Elvis' total would be slightly above Jackson's total thanks to better singles sale. The Beatles are undoubtly #1. BTW if you check Madonna's certification around the world you will see that she sold around 300 million records and you have wrong 200 million number. Regarding your CNN source for Jackson with 350 million figure I can give you another 10+ CNN sources with 750 million figure so your source is completely useless/pointless. Regards. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If I were you, I'd support my arguments with sources. Also, do not preach me about Jackson's sales as I have a huge list going on above. And the 2 million in Canadian album sales on Thriller should be some kind of an evidence that he's sold 750 million records worldwide? I have not counted the singles for UK? Why don't you go back to my writing and look at it more closely this time around as I have not mentioned anything of that kind. Perhaps, for you UK and the entire European continent are the same as the albums sales are for the latter. Before you get to the Beatles and Elvis read all of the discussions.--Harout72 (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that Michael Jackson sold 750 million so why don't you go back to my writing and look at it more closely this time. That was your qoute to me btw! I said that 350 million is pretty correct number. I used MJ's Thriller certification in Canada only as example that Michael Jackson is like Elvis under certified in many countries around the world and that was in context of your future Elvis' sale anaylise using certification as a main source just like in MJ's case + 10% add of course. :) I know that you used certification numbers in MJ's case just to point out that he didn't sold 750 million and my remark regarding not counting singles in UK and wrong, funny 10% add was again in context of future Elvis' sale anaylise using certification because Elvis was primarly singles' artist and to point out that Michael Jackson also has big singles sales but anyway you can forget about that remark, it was completely unnecassary in the context of my main objection. About sources, I have official independant sources to support my arguments regarding Michael Jackson worldwide sale since 25.06.2009. (official chart sales numbers around the world), also for Madonna's 300 million figure etc. Also I repeat I would really like to see YOUR ABBA and Mouskouri and Elvis and The Beatles sales breakdown using the same methodology as in Michael Jackson's case... but after reading all your responses on this subject I really doubt that I (we) will see that. The point is that this list with Michael at 350 million is unfair because he is ONLY big artist with checked/corrected sale number. All other big artists on this list (The Beatles, Elvis, ABBA, Mouskouri) have label's inflated numbers and at the end of day that is completely unfair. Why only Michael Jackson? Why now? Why didn't you checked The Beatles' or Elvis' numbers FIRST or why don't you check all big acts and then do update. Great, old Greek sophist said "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." He was right! Regards!--Z.K. HAL (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

-- ZK Hal, why should we listen to anything you say in regards to your research when your statements like "Elvis is undoubtedly #1 in the USA" is contrary to what the RIAA has posted? Elvis is actually no.2 as a solo artist, behind Garth Brooks, though it is probably true in reality that Elvis is no.1 since a lot of sales data for him is missing, we must stick to the certifications, not what could have been. I fail to see how 2 million vinyls sold in Canada in 1984 contribute to verifying this mammoth total of 750 million, considering that the sales drop in an exponential form over time. Furthermore it was reported that MJ's sales in one week since his death was higher than his sales for the last 11 years, I can pull out this source if you wish, but since this was on the news I'm hoping you had seen it. It's all well to accuse others of not liking MJ when you don't see the statistics you want to see up there. I am not quite sure where you are going with the Elvis is under-certified therefore MJ is also under-certified nonsense. Elvis' under-certifications are a result of RCA Victor bungling and losing sales data, which doesn't apply to MJ as he was not managed by them and I haven't seen any news or any claims that MJ has been under certified from any kind of reputable source, including any claims by SONY themselves.

Sony and RCA Victor have however mentioned that some of Elvis' sales data is missing. I am from Australia, and you are right that he did break some Chart records here, however Australia's population is also not big, and even gaining multi-platinum status here with a few albums is still not the same as the USA. The records he holds here are in terms of the biggest come-backs to the charts, and a record for having 3 albums in the top 3 spots, I fail to see how this justifies 750 million album sales though? Last I recall the global sales of him since his death were around 16 million. His death has been one of the biggest rises in his album sales since the late 80's, and now that sales spike has rapidly declined again. I fail to see any logical conclusion that this 16 million sales now definitely means he is at the 750 million mark.

The world music awards may have stated that Jackson is the highest seller worldwide, however many other sources report contrary claims, including Sony (which holds the catalog for both Elvis and Jackson) where they actually have the sales data since they do the shipping and have claimed Elvis is the highest. We also have Rolling Stone reporting that Elvis is unparalleled in sales and also as a solo artist, including the american government website stating in an article on Elvis that he has sold 1 billion. So if anything all this suggests that sources cannot always be taken as true, Harout's method is a lot more logical, if a few years ago everyone was agreeing his sales were 300 million, it doesn't stand to reason that it's jumped up by 450 million in a few years in a period where he hasn't even been active. Can I kindly see the other 10 sources by CNN that you have that cite him at 750 million? JFonseka (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

JFoneska of course Garth Brooks is at 128 million and Elvis is at 120 million but first of all, to get RIAA certification you must request for it and pay for it. So, many artists are under certified because their label's don't bother with applying and paying for certification. Also, unfortunately for Elvis minimum number for gold certification is 500,000 for gold and 1,000,000 for platinum and Elvis has many singles and albums under 500k or beetween 500k and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 etc. and that plus sales cannot be represented in RIAA numbers. In Garth Brooks' case that not-counted number is rarther small because he only has few albums and no singles. So Elvis is undoubtedly #1 in the USA. Q.E.D. Also certification is not only official number that we have today, there is also for example in US Nielsen Soundscan sales so we have those numbers and for example Michael Jackson has sold since his dead according to Soundscan Nielsen 11.3 million albums+tracks in first 5.5 weeks. There is source link in my first post and all those numbers are not counted in RIAA sales. BTW MJ's Number Ones is certified 1×platinum in US and official Soundscan number for that album is 3.1+ million... Same goes for many other albums including Thriller, now 28×platinum and very soon 30×platinum for sure. Anyway in next few months MJ will get 10+ million more certification if Sony apply for it. You'll see! Regarding "MJ's sales in one week since his death was higher than his sales for the last 11 years" -> that was only about Amazon sales. Do you need source links about that? Also do you know that Jackson's broke countless sales records on Amazon (on amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.fr, amazon.de, and even in amazon.co.jp). Do you also know that MJ was #1 on comprehensive Billboard chart in US last 6 of 7 weeks. Tommorow he we'll be again #1 with Number Ones, #3 with Essential and #4 with Thriller + 6 more albums in Top 50. BTW I am talking about Billboard comprehensive chart that includes all albums in US not Billboard 200 which includes only new albums. About MJ in Australia you have only mentioned few of his new records but there are many more unprecedent records... I can pull out sources if you wish! :) I again repeat I have never said that MJ sold 750 million. I said twice that 350+ million is pretty correct number according to certifications and many (end-year) charts with sales numbers around the world. FYI among others I am charts collector for more than 20 years. Canada was just an example that Jackson is way undercertified around the world (plus I used that for Elvis comparasion blablabla)... Same goes for his other albums in Canada, also as I mentioned before you can check Soundscan numbers in US for his albums like Bad, Off The Wall, Thriller, Essential etc. and then check his certification dates and in RIAA certification and also there is no MJ solo sales while he was in Motown. In RIAA there is no sales numbers for his many top-ten and even #1 singles because of the same reason like in Elvis case. You said that Jackson sold 16 million records since 25.06.?! Wow, OK please check total UK albums+singles sales only in UK, France and US and you will be surprised with number! Cheers! Regarding Elvis sales I repeat I can use SAME Harout's method to show you that Elvis 1 billion figure is completely fake. But of course you have Rolling Stone number or countless other "reliable" sources citing same inflated label's number for Elvis... and what about ABBA 370 million number LOL or Mouskouri 300 million LOL. Where? Can you show me using chart history around the world + certifications, logical, common sense proof for that inflated numbers?! For you Rolling Stone or any other source with 1 billion is great proof that Elvis sold 1 billion but when someone use same quality sources for also inflated 750 million MJ's figure that is illogical, against common sense, false, blabla.... Double standards?! (Oh, I forgot MJ was black.) At the end FYI, according to Nielsen Soundscan Elvis sold 30+ million records from 1991-2009. Regarding Elvis' sale he was big in '50s but if you look Billboard's charts (do you need sources?) you will see that after 1962 he wasn't so big in terms of number of successful hits and albums and that of course means lower sales. After 1962 'till death 1977 Elvis had only 8 top 10 singles and only 1 #1 on Billboard. You can make deatailed analyse using Billboard's charts from 1963-1978 and you will see that in that period he wasn't so big. Same goes for the rest of the world (you can check lists around the world).

For example, 5 web sources that Michael Jackson sold 700-750 million records by CNN: 1. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/ 2. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/13/michael.jackson.concerts.tickets/index.html 3. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/smith.jackson.appreciation/ 4. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ 5. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.world/index.html ...

Also please check this picture... http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg So according to Guinness Michael Jackson is first entertainer to have officially ratified sales of more than 100 million albums outside the USA. That is the fact and if you check certifications around the world (excluding US and UK) you will se that MJ was way ahead Elvis, but according to RIAA Elvis sold 120 million in US so to get 1 billion figure Elvis sold another 880 million plus/minus outside of US. LOL Please can you tell me where? Anyway, this Wikipidia list of best-selling music artists with INFLATED numbers for Elvis, The Beatles, ABBA, Mouskouri etc. and ONLY for Michael Jackson checked/corrected sale figure is a joke. I can't prove but I suspect racial issue here (?!) because for Michael Jackson you are using different standard then for Elvis, The Beatles, ABBA and Mouskouri. He is only black arist among them and ONLY with checked/corrected figure. NOT FAIR!!! Double standards. Q.E.D. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not something that should be taken personally, but i have done a little breakdown on your first post Z.K. HAL - just so you realize how obsurd your claims sound. 20 citation needed tags in only a couple of paragraphs, that's how many unsubstantiated statements you made. Bolded my ad libbing to stand out, not to indicate agression, just in case that is accidently implied. Here's the link Citation needed. k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 09:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Kiac I can provide all citation and then what? I will lose time and this list will remain the same! I don't see the point in that but anyway... BTW everything I wrote you can check by yourself for example: 1) For Michael being most certified artist is Australia you must go through all ARIA certification database (on web http://www.aria.com.au/pages/aria-charts-accreditations.htm for free you can only check ALL certification from 1997-2009. Anyway it is a hard work to collect all that triva facts but... At the end you will find out that MJ has 55×platinum + 3×gold awards for now... He is #1. Contact ARIA for independant official confirmation! :) 2) If you want 25 years old Thriller 2 million winyl certification go to http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php and type Michael Jackson and album Thriller ... 3) To check that Michael Jackson is still #1 almost everywhere around the world go to: USA: http://www.billboardmagazine.com/bbcom/charts/chart_display.jsp?g=Albums&f=Billboard+Comprehensive+Albums UK: http://uk.launch.yahoo.com/c/uk/album_charts.html Germany: http://www.musicload.de/musicloadcharts chooes alben Australia: http://www.ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display.asp?chart=1A50 Italia: http://www.fimi.it/classifiche_artisti.php Spain: http://www.afyve.com/espanol.html Dutch: http://www.dutchcharts.nl/weekchart.asp?cat=a (MJ is #2, #4, #7) Japan: http://www.billboard.com/charts/japan-albums#/charts/japan-albums (MJ is #2) Europe: http://www.billboard.com/charts/european-albums#/charts/european-albums (MJ is #1, #2, #4, #7, #9, #10) etc. etc. You can check lists all around the world, from South America, New Zealand, Ireland etc. etc. and everywhere is the same MJ is still on the top or in the worst case with few albums in top 10. 4) To see that Michael Jackson has much bigger certification total around the world than Elvis (excluding US), ABBA or Mouskouri go to official sites around the Europe and world and check by yourself. You have few links on this page posted by Harout72. 5) In 2000 Michael Jackson got Best Selling Pop Male Artist of the Millennium award at the World Music Award http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/RTV/2000/05/12/005120036/?v=0&a=1 or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q05eanhuEik OK he is the best pop selling artist so Elvis is probably excluded as rock artist... 6) For Michael Jackson 350 million figure I must give you hundreds of citation... excuse me I am not that stupid... :) BTW you can find hundreds of inflated 750 million figure citation for MJ from various TV stations, newspapers and you don't believe in that but you believe that Elvis sold 1 billion or ABBA 370 or Mouskouri 300? Why? 7) For countless MJ's charts and sales' records after his dead around the world I can put hundreds links but really what is the point? I will prove what? You didn't prove that Elvis sold 1 billion, you didn't prove that ABBA sold 370, you didn't prove that Mouskouri sold 300 million so... You have few quotes about those sales and those citations are reliable equally as Michael Jackson's 750 million citations and I repeat Michael Jackson is only checked/corrected. Why?--Z.K. HAL (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no intention of making you actually source them. But thank you for showing your legitamacy. In the future it's best that you include these references (or at least some) in your post, if you're going to state 'facts'. Please remember that each artist stands out individually and should not necessarily be compared to others, they're completely separate - please keep this in mind, you seem to be thinking 'if Elvis is here why can't Michael be?' - it doesn't work that way. It's a progressive process and pushing one thing's credibility down to raise another's is not helping the entire page. Oh and... no "I" did not have much at all to do with the article's figures - stop trying to creat an enemy of me, please. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This page requires a greater degree of protection
I took a look at some of the sources for the claims of Michael Jackson's 750 million figures, given by the people here. And I have come to the conclusion that many people propagating these claims on wikipedia, and also the people who are constantly reverting back to the old edits are not actually reading anything. Someone has posted this link as one of the sources, it's by the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

Supposedly this is a citation of Michael Jackson's 750 million sales figure, however reading the article it's clearly an article that contests the 750 million sold, and it contests it strongly. This same wall street Journal cites two independent researches claiming Michael Jackson's sales figures of 132 million to 202 million worldwide (not taking into account the digital downloads and sales before his death)

This page is definitely being vandalized if it comes to the point where people are claiming artists have sold a certain amount but citing evidence that is refuting the claims the person citing the source is making! This is ridiculous and a shame to anyone contributing this nonsense as it indicates people are not actually reading anything, this goes to people constantly reverting the edits. So now we have 2 sources indicating MJ's sales of 750 million, the other source given was a Sony press report, the interesting thing is that the Wall Street Journal mentions that Sony has refused to give details on the sales, whereas the press report gives an opinion of a Sony executive in memoriam. What are we to believe? Sony as a whole refusing sales data at the time of the WSJ publishing on the 15th of July, and a remark (not an official statement) by a Sony executive on the 26th of June stating 750 million. This is highly questionable and now puts this second source into question.

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

The third source given was MTV, so now the question remains, which is more credible, CNN and The Daily Telegraph or an editorial done for MTV. I am not contesting MTV's credibility here, but considering CNN is a primary news sources and highly reputable, along with the Daily Telegraph, I cannot see any reason why the reportings of an entertainment channel has to be given precedence over CNN and The Daily Telegraph. And I cannot see any reason why Chzz suggestions has to be put into effect given now that the only credible source of information remaining is MTV, Sony's statements have been contradictory and vague if one of their executives has to state the propagated 750 million sales, and then refuse sales data to the Wall Street Journal, thus taking it out as a serious contender for verifiable or reputable evidence such as Chzz asks for. This page definitely needs serious protection, it is not only been needlessly edited and re-edited, but people are giving evidence refuting their own claims! It's a joke. JFonseka (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh god get over yourself man. That WSJ article only states what MIGHT be the case. And they actually don't dispute the figure at all they say they think it includes his singles as well as his albums. Remember we are talking about RECORDS sold, not ALBUMS sold, which can include Singles. They also state that Beatles' figure is probably off. Regardless of all this they still don't have any evidence one way or another though so that article is irrelvent. And the reason why people use Sony as the most reliable source is because they are OBVIOUSLY the most knowledgable out of ANY source. Use COMMON SENSE. That 750 Million figure that comes from Sony Music, a huge record label, is reputable enough to be picked up by hundreds of website. So if it's good enough for them and widely accepted as his total by the public why is it not good enough for here? Going by Wikipedia policies 750 Million should be his total. End of story. --Mrparissm (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional sources claiming 750 million units sold by Jackson:


 * USA Today ABC News CBS News MSNBC People The Times Forbes Reuters E!


 * I hope this helps to demonstrate the wide verifiability of this figure. Solid State Survivor (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When interpreting these sources we should probably take this statement from The Wall Street Journal into account:

"(An estimated figure previously mentioned) is an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million. That figure (750mil) first got legs in late 2006, when Raymone Bain, a publicist for Mr. Jackson at the time, touted in a letter to Jackson fan clubs that sales had "exceeded over 750 million units."

Units could be interpreted to mean a rough tally of the number of songs sold, not albums. But many journalists and fans interpreted the figure as albums sold, and a wildly inflated number was born.

Mr. Jackson's record label, Sony Music, declined to share sales numbers. Ms. Bain didn't respond to requests for comment; she sued Mr. Jackson in May after their business relationship ended. In her lawsuit, she claimed Mr. Jackson sold "over 1 billion records world-wide." Now if this is true - actually no, if this is verifiable, which it is - then all of these 750mil figures have come from a publicist sending a letter to fanpages, which have in turn published it... absolutely, totally, completely 100% unreliable. k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

K.i.a.c. AGAIN if you want to use that wsj OPINION piece as some sort of bible and ignore all the other sources linked to on this page than by all means do so. HOWEVER please note that same piece has the Beatles at a THIRD of their total on this Wikipedia list and that Michael Jackson is ABOVE Elvis. Of course you won't pay any attention to that because your main focus is to somehow discredit Michael Jackson and back your best bud Harout72. That piece has no relevant data to this discussion. Who cares where the 750mil figure was first heard, it was later VERIFIED by Official Sony press releases and statements linked to on this very page. --Mrparissm (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wall Street Journal is no less reliable as a source than any of those other publications. At what point does this article say it is an opinion piece? It's not your average facts and figures article, yes, it is subjective. It's questioning the "facts" which are laid out in front of us, which we are expected to gobble up. As I said in my above response - please refrain from comparing these artists, this is not a competition, there is no literal first place, they aren't comparitive. I don't give a fuck about Michael Jackson either way (pardon my French), that's where I stand on this, neutral as ever, greatest pop singer of all time, pedo, virgin, whatever... I don't care. Stop trying to make this some personal issue, the only person who seems to have a personal issue with these figures is you. Will you be here after/if this is resolved? No. Will I? Yes. That's your right, but realise the shoes you're putting yourself in.


 * It's less reliable and verifiable than the very record company that knows Michael Jackson's sales! And it's quite obviously an opinion piece the man himself states in the article that he's guessing. And if you would actually read the article without your obvious bias you would see that he was confirming the 750 Million number and states how Sony MIGHT have gotten to it! He then states it's more than likely a combination of Albums + Singles. He never once states that the figure is incorrect. If you notice this list on Wikipedia is for RECORDS sold which INCLUDES albums and singles! How is this article disputing anything here? If you would actually take the time to READ with an open mind and actually see what's being stated over and over again you would see this. Is this a personal issue for me? Yes it is and it's because of people like you trying to discount this mans legacy. That ENTIRE LIST is filled with inflated numbers yet all you and anybody else is doing is singling Michael Jackson out. Going by Wikipedia's policies the most verifiable and most reported figures should be the ones used. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes Sony Music verifiable? There has been multiple claims in this very talk page that seem to indicate to me that record companies are renowned for editing/inflating/deflating figures to suit themselves. The WSJ, a reliable publication also clearly states that this figure began as a matter of fiction. At what point does a record company do their own research and minimise a figure when they have all these sources copying each other? Of course they're not going to - unless they stand to gain, as with EMI and The Beatles mentioned above. k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * K.I.A.C. please don't sit there and act like you know what Sony or any record company would do because you don't. And the article never states it started as a matter of fiction it states the first place the figure was revealed! That does NOT make it fiction as SONY THEMSELVES HAVE VERIFIED THE NUMBER. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or not but you can't speak for them and I would appreciate if you would stick with the facts and drop all this conjecture that has no relevance to the discussion. People have posted source after source after source. Yet you and your buddy want to hang on this one opinion piece that doesn't even confirm anything your way anyway! --Mrparissm (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

read this http://www.michaeljackson.com/uk/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the top of the page. No artist websites. No way they hold up against other more reliable sources. k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 14:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cnn did report 750 million before http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/

JFonseka just for the record Wall street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html) cites two independent researches claiming Michael Jackson's sales figures of 132 million to 202 million worldwide. "One of this independent researchers is Guillaume Vieira, an engineer in Paris, who has compiled his own totals for his Web site, Fan of Music. By his count, Michael Jackson had sold 205.5 million albums before his death, plus many millions more in singles and downloads." Here you can see COMPLETE LIST: http://fanofmusic.free.fr/BestSellersWorldActs and according to him Michael Jackson is above Elvis Presley. Elvis' albums total is 187,000,000 and Michael Jackson 205.5 million before his death. EOD! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the Elvis/MJ/Beatles situation - Elvis is the only one of these artists to have huge alums sales outside the RIAA compass. Howver that is another subject.

Many media reports have been casually reporting the 750 million for MJ, they have taken it from an unchecked and to be blunt a totally deliberately hyped or unofficial source. That it is so being reported does not make it true. Sony have included in two publicity statements these figures, but in manner that does not support this as as an official company view point. Nor that it is for individual units. - The most obvious falsity of the claims for 750Millon is so glaringly patent that I am wondering why it is even being discussed. It is in a count of Michael's album sales much of which is in the public domain. Firstly forget the 100 million for Thriller,it is much lower. When you count the global sales for Michaels 5 best selling albums these come to 160 Million or just under. The last of these albums has an 8 million tag to it. ie  - - Off The Wall: 19m - Thriller: 65m - Bad: 28m - Dangerous: 29m - History: 18m - Invincible: 8m -   - This means all his other albums have sold below the 8 million mark. There is no possibiliity of extrapolating much more than 200 Million sales here. Then add the singles and the 350 Million is actually a generous figure. Also, no doubt that Michael Jackson is selling well now, but a large amount of the figures are downloads. -   - What we have here is a situation, where by if you repeat a lie long enough people will believe it, and the bigger the lie the better. - I think full credit needs to be given to the guardian of this site from failing to be pressurised by no doubt genuine fans who have bought into the 750M hype. And who can blame them, they see the figures quoted frequently enough. But it is still hype. What I think will be of interest is to see how far up the RIAA ladder Mr Jackson shoots up in a year or two.I think his fans will be disappointed to find that it is no where near what one would be led to believe if the 750 Million sales and current figures being thrown around like Confetti had any credability. PaulStar —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulStar (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PaulStar give me Elvis' sales breakdown with his 1 billion sale figure! With officially ratified sales! You can't! Why? Because that number is fake just like MJ's 750 million number! I repeat independent researcher Guillaume Vieira mentioned in Wall street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html that Elvis sold 187 million albums worldwide. You all use that article as source to point out that MJ didn't sold 750 million so then you also must use/apply the same source for Elvis because that same researcher has said that Elvis sold 187 million albums worldwide (http://fanofmusic.free.fr/BestSellersWorldActs) so... Why double standards! BTW do you know when all started with that 1 billion number for Elvis? :) Also, please give me ABBA's sales breakdown with 370 million figure and Mouskouri's sales breakdown with 300 million figure! You can't! Why? Because -> fake inflated numbers without details! You all dispute MJ's Sony official number because Sony has refused to give details on the MJ's sales but be fair and acknowledge that you can say the same thing for Elvis, ABBA, Mouskouri etc. ...all inflated numbers without details just like MJ's 750 million, but you people here are only talking about MJ! Hmmmmmm, why? Why?!?! PaulStar, you are obviously Elvis' fan and that is OK but this list must be objective and if all big acts have label's inflated numbers WITHOUT details and without independent officially ratified sales that certify those big numbers than why ONLY correct MJ's number? Double standards! --Z.K. HAL (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Z.K. HAL!!! That's what I've been saying! And another thing I would like to point out to PaulStar is that the numbers on this Wiki list are for RECORDS sold NOT Albums! That is a big difference. RECORDS sold includes singles, Albums, etc. So there's no way for us to find our own numbers we have to trust the record companies. Which only makes sense. --Mrparissm (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

is are my reason why he sold 750 List of best-selling music artists http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html and here is one more http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ i am not a michael jackson fan but your are being bias with your cliams even though we have better sources for michael jackson then elvis or the beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnali123 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those links you gave do not show any total sales numbers, find another source please. Momo san  Gespräch 16:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Momusufan it states his 750 Million total right there in the article! READ. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but other sources are needed to back that number up, ex: record company stats. Momo san  Gespräch 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html you just said that sony records and the offical michael jackson site is lying yet  cnn  are right now i have just given you  cnn sources which say he has sold 750 records and you are tying to say you are more qualified in sales then them  you just cant except he has sold that much and that is the truth even if you do not like it  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passwordpass (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

BIG OBJECTION! In this article there is a citation for Michael Jackson 350 million figure http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.world/index.html - citation number 9 in article. In that cnn source there are actually 2 numbers. 350 million figure and 700 million figure in STORY HIGHLIGHTS! Hmmmmm, so why do you take 350 million as correct number? Why not 700 million? Also I gave before links for another 4 CNN articles with 750 million figures and now I will put many more sources from ABC, CBS, MTV, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Sky, BBC with 750 million number: 1) http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/26/2609049.htm 2) http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=8050704&page=1 3) http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WinterConcert/wireStory?id=7075284 4) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/06/entertainment/michaeljackson/main5137816.shtml 5) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/entertainment/main3461884.shtml 6) http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1614815/20090626/jackson_michael.jhtml 7) http://cbs2.com/entertainment/michael.jackson.hospitalized.2.1059895.html 8) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/arts/music/26jackson.html?_r=1 9) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062503127.html 10) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/wpix-michael-jackson-heart-attack,0,6959872.story 11) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29531056/ 12) http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Michael-Jackson-Memorial-Service---In-Numbers/Article/200907115331455 13) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8121749.stm 14) http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f27ec8db-af05-4f36-916e-3d57f91ecf5e etc... I can put here another 100+ reliable sources with 750 million number and this article have ONLY 1, I repeat ONLY 1 source with 300+ million MJ's number. Also I would like to point out again this Guinness picture (you must enlarge picture)... http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg So according to Guinness Michael Jackson is first entertainer to have officially ratified sales of more than 100 million albums outside the USA. So according to Guinness Elvis eventually sold maximum 99,999,999 albums and plus his 120 million RIAA certified US sales that is only 219,999,999 + worldwide singles. Later or tomorrow I will do Elvis certification breakdown around the world using same method as Harout72 to show that Elvis' 1 billion figure is fake. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's Numbers Need To Be Reverted To 750+ Million
I've cancelled out this for now, Mrparissm, I hope that you will not mind; currently, we do not really have a clear consensus; it's all rather tl;dr. Remember that there is no deadline; discussions are ongoing, and I'm sure that we can reach a conclusion - but, in fairness to all parties, we have not really done so yet. If you disagree with my removing the edit request for now, then please contact me on my talk page. I hope that you'll understand; I'm just trying to help matters along in resolving this dispute. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not fair, actually it is complete discrimination, prejudice to have Michael Jackson at 350 million while Elvis is at 1 billion or ABBA at 370m or Mouskouri at 300m etc. until we have clear concensus here. For all artists we must apply same rules and fact is we'll never have consensus here because there are no big artists including Michael Jackson with completely officially ratified sales with details. So for all artists we are using (equally) credible sources and according to big majority of sources (BBC, ABC, CBS, MTV, The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Sky News, CNN, CNN, CNN, CNN, CBS etc...) Michael Jackson sold 750 million. As you mentioned before Wikipedia is not actually interested in the truth, just what is verifiable and I repeat multiple reliable sources state the figure of 750m. Regards --Z.K. HAL (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The original edit that downgraded Michael Jackson's sales to 350+ Million should be changed back to 750+ Million as we sort this mess out and come to a consensus. There is no consensus agreeing to have his sales downgraded. So reverting back to his original 750 Million total seems fair. This was his number for over 2 years on here. Not going back to his original figure as we come to a consensus would imply a bias in the editors here as we work this out. --Mrparissm (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


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

"Michael Jackson's Numbers Need To Be Reverted To 750+ Million", yeah i totally agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanid (talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * michael jackson offical website, sony records and others sources have said here he has sold this much just beacuse you say he had sold 300 million does not mean he has, you are also cliaming cnn have said this but they also said here has sold 750 million before his death


 * please can someone change michael jackson sales to 750 million beacuse it has been like this for 2 years. also their are better sources of michael jackson sales which state he has sold 750 million than the beatles and elvis which say they have sold 1 billion this is very unfair on michael jackson please change this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk • contribs)

Those sources are NOT reliable. CNN article looks like a typo, considering other CNN articles make mention of the 750 number, and that 100 facts about MJ is just plain out wrong. It's gotten more facts than his number of albums sold wrong. Put it back. The sources already cited by someone else are reliable, and the ones being used now are garbage. Quit playing games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoMistress (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * the sources if you look above are more than realiable for michael jackson please put it back to 750 million. you are say it is not reliable beacause you do not what to except that he has sold this much. even his record company have said this they know far more than you do someone please edit michael jackson sales people are being very bias with michael jackson sales he sold more than abba.  also for michael jackson their are more reliable sources which cliam here has sold 750 million than the sources you have given the beatles and elvis.  could someone please put michael jackson sales back too how there where and someone put protection on List of best-selling music artists beacuse they are know someone will give the right sources for the beatles and elvis beaucse they have not sold 1 billion.

his sales have bern 750 million for 2 years why change michael jackson sales, but not elvis or the beatles even thought their better sources for michael jackson sales. and i am not a fan of michael im a elvis fan this article is bias  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.234.167 (talk • contribs)


 * I must admit that I am overwhelmed by the fact how genuine of fans you all are. I truly sense one thing here, with all you fans screaming and shouting PUT MICHAEL BACK TO 750 MILLION, YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE I HAVE THIS SOURCE THAT SOURCE, and I hate to say this guys, but I no longer sense competence within most of the discussions, I only sense obsessed fans who due to exasperation are blinded from seeing what's realistic and logical. I find especially some of the statements incredibly unique, Michael Jackson has passed away and you guys are singling him out for inflated sales numbers when your ENTIRE LIST IS FULL OF THEM! or This was his number for over 2 years on here. Mrparissm, do you even read what you write before pressing the Save Page button? Are you suggesting that we should leave his numbers inflated only because he passed away, even though,  you admit that the figure is inflated? Just because for many months we had 750 for Jackson or 200 million for Toni Rossi (for example) doesn't mean they were necessarily correct figures, I have spent over two years policing this page constantly cleaning up. And what his death got to do with his figures? Does this also mean that we should put The Drifters back on the list with their 300 million in sales, regardless of the fact that they don't have a single evidence of sales within databases anywhere in the world only because some/all members have passed away too?--Harout72 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

sony records and his offical website know more than any one here on wikipedia and why is it only michael jackson sales which are being edited when their is nothing wrong with the information you have been given

http://www.michaeljackson.com/uk/news/michael-jacksons-it-be-presented-theaters-around-world http://press.sonymusic.com/2009/06/26/sony-comments-on-the-passing-of-michael-jackson http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html

i think some should complain about you Harout72

beaucse he claims that cnn are right about michael jackson but in the sources below it says he has sold 750 million thats 2 cnn soruces agianst 1 of your other cnn source you have provided http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/michael.jackson.album.sales/ http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/uk.jackson.comeback/index.html

also if you work this hard on michael jackson sales why dont you work this hard with the beatles, elvis or any other best selling artists

NOTE Please see summary and further discussion below  Chzz  ►  03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)