Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Beatles - 1 billion table

The Beatles are under the 500 million table. But in the reference link to "About.com", it says, and I quote: EMI and the Guinness Book of World Records estimate that more than 1-billion Beatles albums, singles and CDs have been sold worldwide". Surely this is good enough for them to be put into a '1 billion or more' table as when reading the article it sounds like all the artists in that table (Beatles, Crosby, Presley, Jackson and Sinatra) have sold between 500-999 million. Poiuytre (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

please start new discussions at the bottom of the page. This issue has been discussed many times before and the decision was to leave them all at that place. Realist2 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Elvis Presley is the best-selling artist of all time with 1.2 billion albums sold worldwide. The Beatles are just over 1 billion, and Garth Brooks is at around 800 million. These figures come from industry sources, which are subject to hype, but are entirely believeable in my mind when you consider the number of years, number of albums, and the untold millions sold by pirates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.190.43.202 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

I know its not as important as everything else, but theres some typos in the article. Could anyone fix it up, or should I do it???Rakhtael (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has sold more than the Beatles. You cannot consider albums and singles. Just albums.


[edit] Sources need cconfirmation on reliability

On checking just a few random entries another editor and myself have found several of the citations are nothing more than links to Wikipedia mirros or blog entries which do not meet up to WP:RS policy. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for its own content. Some degree of scrutiny should be undertaken to verify the weblinks used in this article. As for now its standing as a reliable resource for information has been compromised by the Wiki-mirror links. It has been an unstable article for as long as its been around on Wikipedia. If the reliability of the content can't be improved the article may have to go to an AfD to decide its fate. 156.34.221.33 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I found and removed a few that did not have references. Furthermore, is this article even necessary? 220.253.8.139 (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think so. As long as all artists' sales in it are sourced, it's a fairly good resource. Funeral 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we to keep artists single-sourced, I see some of the multiple sources have been removed because I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have more than one source if they seem reliable. Also, I don't think we should simply remove artists at least the popular ones the source of which may be outdated or nonfunctional instead we should help the page by locating sources or simply place [citation needed] as I had next to the source of Adriano Celentano which is still there and nonfunctional.--Harout72 (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as too many sources as long as they meet up to WP:RS and support WP:V. Book/Pro publication sources are better than web sources since most web sources are either unreliable, masked Wiki mirrors, or peacock self-refs with ballooned sales figures coming directly from the artists themselves. 156.34.212.152 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of the extra sources were either dead/non-reliable/unneeded. This article receives a lot of sneaky vandalism, so a special thanks to those editors that try keeping it free of vandalism, and in a neutral point view. There are indeed many musicians from around the world missing from this list. Unfortunately, finding reliable sources is not easy. Even for musicians such as Fela Kuti, and Bob Dylan. 220.253.25.106 (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Most of the info given is crap! Either the fans are inflating or the record companies are! there should be a way to at least put the fans' continuous attempts to inflate the numbers of their favorite artists to an end... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.60.112.4 (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


185 sources seems to be impressive, but in fact is unreliable and hopelessly outdated. e.g. number 21 regarding the "rolling stones" is from 1990, some 18 years ago. (http://web.abo.fi/~jbacklun/moneymen.htm). but the stones are still rocking and rolling more successful than ever. a newer source may be: http://www.beatzenith.com/the_rolling_stones/rssalzcerts.htm. (reliable?) i understand that collecting these numbers is not easy and needs a real 'musicologist' & serious researcher, not a fan. but please keep it and keep it updated, because it is a wonderful scale to measure popularity and mainstream taste and culture. 125.25.212.127 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) stephan

[edit] Wikiality

This whole thing makes me sick. Even sources that meet WP:RS criteria are dated AFTER they were first posted on Wikipedia. Led Zeppelin and AC/DC are just two examples. Those bands' respective Wiki articles claimed 300 million and 150 million albums sold long before more "reputable" sources published those figures as "fact". Now those "reputable sources" are used as citations on Wikipedia to back up figures that were started on Wikipedia in the first place. It's disgusting. Lazy journalists have been using Wikipedia as a source and now we have to swallow these figures because they're subsequently published in "reputable" sources? Please see the Talk Pages of Led Zeppelin and AC/DC to see what I'm dealing with. And it's far from just them. This disease has infected the articles for Pink Floyd, The Who, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Queen, and on and on. What can be done about it? 74.77.222.188 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to some trend towards building some artifical league table of record sales so as to prove 'my favourite band is better than yours'. What can be done is for someone with some Wiki authority to declare that there is no one who compiles data on worldwide sales and all this nonsense can be removed. Will this ever happen.........--Egghead06 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
God, I hope it happens, because this thing is a farce. And people are calling me a vandal for removing this garbage. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the Michael Jackson claim of 750 million sales worldwide? His main article lists a news article as a reference. http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/music/main3461884.shtml??source=RSS&attr=_3461884 Iam (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have seen this exact thing on many websites, even so called creditable ones. This is why sales data provided by the record companies is most important. Their data is audited for tax purposes. The data by a recording industry association is from the record companies and undergoes another audit for their awards (assuming the record company wants to do that) I personally do not like this website, I have noticed many false statements and biographies for Japanese musicians, an industry that I'm familiar with since it is part of my career. So I have been at war with many other editors over those articles, and finally made some progress to change things. Also it took me a long time, but I found a few reliable sources for Japanese musicians for this article, which dispelled nonsense written in other articles. I think wiki articles for musicians should be basic, and include nothing but official information, and not allow stupid things such as "rolling stone magazine listed him as 5th greatest guitarist of all time" and other such nonsense. 220.253.4.192 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking

Can someone please explain this? "Note also, that with the exception of the 500 Million level, artists within each category are sorted alphabetically, NOT by rank.". It isn't by sales data, not by alphabetical listing, or any other order that I can make out for the 500m section. Why separate it differently to the rest of the list? Why not just keep it all alphabetical? 60.234.242.196 (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the alphabetical order within the 500 mil. section. Since artists were neither by rank nor alphabetically, I thought we should have at least one.--Harout72 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best Selling Artists

It states as fact that three artists have been nominated in the past as being the worlds best-sellers, yet there is no reference or evidence to suggest this (in the artical). As such it is open to vandalism, as anyone can add lesser known groups as they are as open to the speculation and non validity of those listed. Curiously, if you read the MJ page, it states he was awarded the "Artist of the Millennium" award, but read the reference, and he wasn't. Therefore does such a reference to him being the world's best-seller exist? Also take into account, the award for "Most Successful Artist" has not been stated as being for best-selling. Success can be attributed to many things. If non-referenced, I think it should state that the best-selling artist is unknown - fullstop. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have mentioned that before, and tried to remove it from the article. I also read that his album "thriller" sold more than 100 million copies, which according to the record company is not true, because they mentioned the album sold around 45 million copies (that is a huge difference) this whole article garbage. I quickly received this in a few minutes [1] it is interesting that in Michael Jackons own market, his thriller album is the second best selling album with just over 20 million copies sold. That means it had to sell more than 80 million copies in foreign markets to reach such a statement, and where is the audit from those markets to acknowledge such a claim? 220.253.4.192 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million albums worldwide

http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/music/main3461884.shtml??source=RSS&attr=_3461884 also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14i4Lmv1i4g —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmesmith1892 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not according to his record company. In addition, they stated his album "thriller" selling around 25 million. Information that is audited for legal reasons. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I requested for page protection as the vandalism is at ridiculously high level from anonymous IPs mostly. Semi-protection will expire on the 16th of August, 2008. --Harout72 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great now I can't edit the article anymore. Would of been better to request those editors to be banned from editing. Many of the vandals include new accounts as well, which is likely someone being a sock-puppet. 220.253.4.192 (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I know you help out a lot keeping vandals out, but I just felt that it was really going out of control. Frankly, it's quite annoying to put all the time into reverting versions over and over when we could put that time to toss out those artists with unreliable sources or locate better/more reliable sources, because as far as I am concerned it's impossible to fight against every single whelp.--Harout72 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Yeah So Why Aint Tupac On There

His Sold Well Over 75 Million Albums + Over 15 Million Singles / Check His Wikipedia Page For Sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibringgoodnews (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tupac was a criminal who laundered drug money through his record companies. His figures are inflated by roughly 1000%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.190.43.202 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan

Dylan still plays music. so it has to be "60s - Present". -- 80.131.91.40 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Jacksons/ Jackson 5

What happen to the jacksons didnt the sell over 100 million. The were on the list prior why havce thge been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.55.126 (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Find a source and ill add it for you. Realist2 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.jackson5concerttickets.com/jackson-5-tour-information

76.126.15.78 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the evidence that the Jackson 5 sold that much: http://www.mjcafe.net/jackson_five.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmesmith1892 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk)

[edit] Herbert von Karajan

While he's not exactly the most well-known name on this list, Karajan is very much in the wrong category. He should be moved up into the 200-500 million section. The source used for his placing in the 100-200 million section is a 1990 New York Times article that has the disadvantages of being both nearly 20 years out of date and significantly under-researched. In his 2007 book The Life and Death of Classical Music, (p.137) musicologist Norman Lebrecht suggests that the number is at least 200 million. Moreover, even his figures do not take into account compilation CDs where Karajan was not necessarily the main artist; I think it's certainly justifiable to consider these just as valid as 'single' recordings, which is a luxury this list affords to pop artists. And he doesn't take into account internet downloads, which are significant because classical music sales represent a big chunk in that market - as much as 12%. Karajan's main record label (Deutsche Grammophon) was also the first to open their own dedicated download store, alongside what iTunes etc offer, and the majority of Karajan's recordings are available to download. Karajan also remains one of their top selling artists on an annual basis. Even if the number were something like 205 million, and I would suggest it's a good deal higher than that (closer to 225-30), he should still qualify for the 200-500 category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source for his higher sales and ill add it. Realist2 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall have a look around. The figure of 'over 200' million pops up a lot - see here, for example. And I myself read it in the aforementioned Lebrecht book. But I'll see what I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is an article which puts the figure at a flat 200 million:

http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/070321-NL-classic.html

The article is from last year, so unless Karajan's record sales have actually gone backwards in the last 18 months are so, I would hope this counts as sufficient evidence to get him into the 200-300 million category. He sells 300,000+ recordings a year anyway, so the number will keep going up. As an aside, Pavarotti is in the 100-200 million section, and his recording total is listed as a flat 100 million. So there is precedent for HvK to move up.

Ill add it in now. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What is his nationality and when did his career begin and end?Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for putting him in the new bracket. He was indeed Austrian. As for the dates, I believe they need a bit of tinkering. His last recording was indeed in 1989 - made in April. This is the information from the record company website:

http://www2.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/trackdetails?PRODUCT_NR=4390372&TRACK_ID=91006843610

However, I recently bought a set of what are said to be his first recordings, and in there there's a recording of some Mozart from December 1938:

http://www2.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/trackdetails?PRODUCT_NR=4776237&TRACK_ID=40117706939

So 1938 - 1989 looks like the most accurate dates for those. Quite a career, no? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, cheers again. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Bowie

It says [1] that Bowie has sold over 140 million albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.237.10 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry,my link didn't work but it says on Bowie wonderworld he sold over 140 million albums.

[edit] Green Day

Green Day has sold over 60 million albums worldwide.

[edit] MARIAH CAREY

mariah carey has sold over 240m record according to wikipedia. and she sold actualli around 250m but she missed the certification line just... anyway please correct it. mariah carey has sold over 240m records.

[edit] Iron Maiden

Iron Maiden has only sold 60 million albums(reference from a norwegian tv show). The source in this article isn't specific, and Metallica(thrash metal) has been stated in the movie "Metal - A Headbangers Journey" to the best selling metal band ever, Iron Maiden is Heavy Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.1.120 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michiya Mihashi

According to the source shown, Michiya Mihashi (Japan) has sold only 10 million records, but he is mistakenly ranked among the "100 million to 200 million records". This person needs to be deleted.

I removed the artist Michiya Mihashi from the list after verifying whether the sales figure within the source really read only 10 million. --Harout72 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The source clearly states he sold more than 100 million records in 1983. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone thoroughly translate who speaks/reads Japanese and verify whether this source does mention anything about 100 million records having been sold by 1983 as User:Katsuya claims (in edit history) after reverting my edit. I translated the content of the source through the help of Google-Language-Tools, wherein I didn't come across any such number as 100 million records.--Harout72 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If it cant be read by the users it should be removed. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Excite Translate Katsuya (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill seek an admins advise on this one.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Per administrative advise seen here, on my talk page, the claim will be removed. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They are a little more reliable, but still completely unreadable. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 14:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Michiya Mihashi sang about 40 hits and sold 10 million copies by debut the eighth year.

＞デビュ－８年で約４０のヒット曲を歌い、１０００万枚のレコードを売り上げた。

  • Michiya Mihashi was the first in history of Kayōkyoku to sale 100 million records by 1983.

＞昭和５８年には、歌謡界史上初のレコード売り上げ「１億枚」を突破。Katsuya (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it means nothing, please either find a source that is reliable or take it up with admins. Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources with a clear citation mean nothing? Nonsense! It is editors like you that give the wikipedia a poor reputation. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Oricon and goo claim Mihashi Michiya sold over 100 million copies. Katsuya (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It was already confirmed by various persons, including myself a long time ago. Terrible editing, and utter vandalism by deleting it. This was well known back in 1983 since there was a "war" among the record labels when certain singers were nearing the 100 million mark. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
An English source [2]. Katsuya I am sorry for their conduct and poor attitude, there are many Japanese musicians that can be added to the list, but it is difficult with people like Harout2 and Realist2, they destroy the wikipedia. The same problem was with other non-English musicians, such as Wei Wei. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.

This means, in the case of Japanese sources, an indication of the authority to be assigned to the source; an artist's own record company would not be regarded as reliable, for example, but some disinterested body (comparable with, for example the RIAA) or a page similar to AllMusic would. Once that is satisfied, the policy requires that it be translated into English reliably. With the best will in the world, a Wikipedia editor's translation is, for these purposes, not regarded as the preferred option; neither is an automated translation produced, as the one I saw, by a website engine such as Excite. The reasons for this should be so self-evident that they don't need explanation. However,

Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content

. If this can be achieved, your problems are over. It is not a question of "destroying the Wikipedia", and such comments are unhelpful. It is a question of satisfying the core policies of reliability and verifiability, and these policies are not negotiable. --Rodhullandemu 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith against constant vandalism, and prejudice? The above user Katsuya quoted the reference, provided a translation, and received an answer "nah that means nothing" which is unacceptable. Katsuya then provided other reliable sources, which were ignored. That was not necessary as the original source is completely acceptable and reliable. This type of behaviour has continued on this article for a long time, particularly with artists that don't come from the United Kingdom or the United States, and yet have respectable references. In addition, you do not remove disputed content from the wikipedia which has a reference, you tag it. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I think we forget that we are writing an encyclopedia- specifically in the English language- for readers of that language. Such readers are entitled to say to themselves "how can I be sure that fact is true?" and that is why we are required to provide reliable and verifiable sources. This is not negotiable. I have reviewed the sources cited above, and am not persuaded that any fulfills those criteria. The Excite translation, even if its source is reliable, is so full of strange language that no reader could reasonably be expected to believe it. Another two are in Japanese and illegible to an English reader. Another, in English, is of uncertain provenance- it could be a blog or fansite, for example- but that cites no references itself. The whole purpose of verifiability is to establish truth, and if that cannot be done within the policies we have, we cannot have the content. It is also policy that it is the responsibility of an editor seeking to add content to justify its inclusion. I suggest that anyone seeking to have this statistic in this article should raise it here. --Rodhullandemu 14:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That is nonsense, the other two sources not valid? A source from Oricon, one of Japans leading music ranking sales companies, and GOO one of Japans leading music sites owned by one of the worlds largest telecommunications companies is questionable? (a blog or fansite?) They have more respect as a reference than allmusic.com and many English sources used throughout this article, since they are in association with the recording labels. The translation is full of strange language? It looks rather simply to understand what is says. [3] Does this look like strange language as well? Translated using the basic google service, it clearly states "For the first time in 1983, the total record sales exceeding 100 million copies." Your administration is appalling, and I will be taking this to the complaint board tomorrow after work when I have the time, including your conduct. This is not acceptable. I also provided an English reference myself, although it shouldn't be necessary as the other sources are provided by much more respectable sources from leading companies, and easily translated using google (what many people would be using) 220.253.192.72 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you might just about be the rudest ip address i have come across (aside the one that called for my lynching), threatening two editers who have both made over 14,000 contributions to wikipedia isnt going to get you anywhere though. Not when you act with such incivility and lack of policy knowledge. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please & WP:NPA. I'm quite happy to be complained about for applying policy, which is my (unpaid) job as an admin here. The Google translation is better, although it's still difficult to assess the reliability of its source. That's why I suggested taking this to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where there are experienced editors who are used to assessing this sort of thing. As for the above IP's post, the editor does not seem to have read my preceding comments with sufficient care. However I'll leave it for WP:ANI or WP:RFC or wherever it ends up. Paradoxically as it may seem, I do have other stuff to do. --Rodhullandemu 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, ill wait till im summoned to serve my sentance. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but Google isn't the only means of verifying the text. WP has plenty of users who can verify the text. You can start here.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Randy2063, however "apparently" other editors are not accepted translators. Moreover Katsuya already translated it which can be seen above, and it was replied with "thats means nothing" (even though thats exactly what it says, and is an excellent English translation) Such a thing has forced me into creating a incident report. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Then I can't imagine the incident report not being resolved in your favor -- unless they revise WP policy.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and it has been resolved justifiably, as evident here. [4] 220.253.8.46 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be resolved through the help of Administrators who have dealt with a similar incident before. As for the Non-English sources, it clearly states: Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher. How is this then justifiable when in the case of List of best-selling music artists we constantly question the reliability of the sources, in fact, when the suggested sources for Michiya Mihashi are simply illegible.--Harout72 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodhull, above is an admin and he thinks they shouldnt be used as sources. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the real problem, as so often, with non-English sources is not so much verifiability, but assessment of the reputability of the sources. I suggest requesting other Japanese speaking contributors/editors to help to assess the reputability. Andries (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Every source was explained, and it received approval from the reliable source board. The reference Katsuya used, is from the JRT musuem. One of the oldest television networks in the world, and where this milestone was first announced. You do not get a better reference than that! Harout72 also removed a reference for Hibari Misora, which is for a book published in 2001 and listed on the Shizouka goverment website. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead of being incivil and accusing us of committing crimes against wiki, why not lay out all your sources together and we can look of them. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I am taking a firm stand towards you and Harout72, who were incivil to Katsuya. Katsuya remained civil in his/her conduct and it got nowhere. I do not believe you have honest intentions due to your incivil responses to Katsuya. The information was deleted instantly without using a dispute tag and using the talk page first. Katsuya remained civil, and provided translations, directly cited the sentence, and found further references. The references are clearly reliable due to their websites. The reliable sources board agrees that they are completely acceptable. This was still ignored, and futher claims made that they are illegible. Rodhull also agrees it is acceptable [5] and mentions there is no reason at all the information should be deleted. If you do not like the outcome, then you should take your complaints to the board. This is what Rodhull suggested. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with any outcome, im asking you to show which source you want to use so that we can discuss it. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The original reference provided by Katsuya, from the JRT musuem. There is also the issue of Harout72 removing the source for Hibari Misora, which is from the Shizouka goverment website. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

this one? If not can you show me, i honestly cant find anything in this maze. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the original reference. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, and whats reliable about it, im not familiar with this source, who is it from etc. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That has already been explained above multi-times. Moreover it has already been accepted by the reliable sources board and the admin. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didnt say it cant be used, im just asking what it is, ive never heard of it, im sure its fine but id like to know where it came from. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It was stated many times that it is from Japan Radio Television, which is part of Nippon News Network, which is owned by NTV. It is one of the oldest television broadcasters in the world, and owned by Yomiuri Shimbun. That is the worlds largest newspaper company. There was a "war" among record labels as to whose "great" singer would be the first to surpass 100 million sales, as the top singers were reaching that milestone. It was a big news story in the early 80's. After a long audit, King Records announced Michiya was the first to reach 100 million sales, and reported it exclusive on Nippon News. This is why it is part of JRT archives. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, prove to me its from Japan Radio Television, because i cant see it from that translation unless im missing something? --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at the web-address. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Below, within the section of David Bowie, you mentioned that someone has removed the source by The New York Times you provided for Hibari Misora some time ago, correct? I went ahead and checked to see if there really was a source published by The New York Times, and there was, which I strongly believe is more acceptable than the former. Since this is an English-language Wikipedia we should first land on sources that are in English. And in the case of Hibari Misora, this source is both more reliable and acceptable than this one, especially with this in mind. --Harout72 (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest you place her in the correct bracket, or revert your edit. I will simply not argue about this, and will return to the incident board where I will seek more than support. It was well known that Lady Misora had sold more than 100 million records in 1986. However, the NY Times article does not mention that the 68 million records are LP's. That article is now 20 years old, as it was published in 1989. The other reference is more recent, and mentions she had sold more than 80 million records. Due to the nature of this article, the NY Times reference is not of equal quality. I am fine to have Hibari in the 75 million bracket, until I can find a solid reference that clearly mentions her surpassing 100 million records. There are also many other musicians I am still trying to find internet references for. Also I have yet to see you include Michiya Mihashi back into the article, this would show you have good intentions for this article, since you are the user who deleted the information and reference claiming there is no mention of 100 millon. This has more than been proven wrong. 220.253.155.88 (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
You still havent said where the excite translation comes from, what is the original source? Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with having Hibari Misora within the 75 million bracket as well, as long as you locate another source published in English-language that is coming from alike reliable arena. However, until that time we should stick to the first and closest English-language source as this one that I already have found. And since you care so much about the comments made here, read the first lines of the suggestions made by Neon White Foriegn language sources are usually ok as long as the same informations isn't available in english. See WP:RSUE It's not usually a good thing to use a machine based translator as they often make mistakes. --Harout72 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times does not provide the same information, as it was published 20 years ago at the time of her death. Your conduct really questions your intentions, as do comments such as "Mihashi has sold only 10 million records. This person needs to be deleted." and "after verifying the sales figure" and "This discussion needs to be resolved through the help of Administrators" and "How is this then justifiable (regarding the reliable sources board)" and then followed by your comment "sources for Michiya Mihashi are simply illegible" and now "since you care so much about the comments made here (at the reliable sources board)" this really raises questions as to your purpose. Maybe you should present your arguements at the board! 220.253.155.88 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tupac Shakur

  • Tupac Shakur sold more than 75 mio. copies, so every normal human would put him in the list "75 to 100", the 67 mio. that are statet are probably wrong or they just counted the albums and not also the singles f.e. the single Dear Mama sold 3 mio. alone....and all people who dont believe it read the xxl magazin from october 2006.......or watch resurrection...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DjDoubleR (talk • contribs) 07:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you understand wikipedia, you need to give a reliable source. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green Day

why ever deleted green day from the list? they have sold nearly 60 million copies, and i put them almost 5 times in their correspondet place with a huge source, and ever deleted them.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maul day (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Bowie (2)

I have here a reliable source which says that David Bowie has sold 136 Million albums worldwide, please add him to to respective catergory on the list.

Source: http://classicrock.about.com/od/bandsandartists/p/david_bowie.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by GigashadowX (talk • contribs) 16:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Since About.com is a unit of The New York Times Company, then the suggested source is reliable enough. I added David Bowie into the list, within the section of 100-200 million.--Harout72 (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
However, when I added Hibari Misora to the list, with an article written by the NY Times, it was removed? She has sold more than 100 million these days, but can't use television or radio as a reference. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to an article published by New York Times, it shouldn't have been removed as it's a reliable source; however, they are to be removed if there is no sales figure within regardless who the article is published by. If you perhaps still could locate the source and post it here, I'll add it if the sales figure is over 50 million and it's published by NYT as you claim. --Harout72 (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This article [6] was about her death and was published in 1989, and it clearly states in English that she had sold 68 million records at that time, including 45 million singles. It was told the NY Times is not a reliable reference, so I had to find another reference. The new reference is more recent (but still 10 years out of date) and it only mentions her record sales (which were at that time 80 million) and not the sales of her singles. So she had to remain in the 75 million bracket. 220.253.8.46 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, since many artists continue to sell records after their deaths, a source almost twenty years old is not as good as a more recent one, even though the latter is not in English, but can satisfy WP:RSUE. Accordingly, the last edit will be reverted and should not be replaced. Take it to the RS noticeboard if you think it's a faulty reference but if there is any more edit-warring on this article, it will be fully-protected until the parties achieve consensus. --Rodhullandemu 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Im actually quite lost now, there are three different arguments going on, its getting silly, one at a time please lol. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 01:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem

Eminem is still in the music industry he has a new album coming out end of 2008.(according to wkipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.175.230 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem source

How is rapweekly.com a reliable source? 220.253.192.72 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dame Shirley Bassey

Bu January 2008, Dame Shirley Bassey had sold 135 million records, but is not included in this list. Can we please amend it? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.6.34 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, with a source, otherwise it cant be added im afraid. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eagles

can we say that the eagles were active from 1971–1980 then from 1994–present beccause the gap counts against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.130.195 (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. Michael jackson only releases teo albums a decade, does that mean hes in and out of retirement, i think not. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)