Talk:ABBA

sales figure

@Dhoffryn:, @88marcus:

Your edits regarding the sales figures are imho a clear violation of WP:V and WP:OR, two core policies of WP. If you want to have sales figures/estimates, you go with the figures cited most commonly in (recent) reliable authoritative sources and/or certified sales figures. What you cannot do however, is to pick non-representative outlier figure from some outdated low quality source, just because you personally think that figure is closer to the "true figure" as such an approach violates the two core policies named above.

So if you keep pushing low quality sources into the article, which are not representative for generally stated figures (in better sources) then I'm going to escalate that into an "official" conflict (to Arbom if need be) to enforce that WP core policies are followed in this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: The only person who is doing WP:V and WP:OR here is you. There's no problem with the 150 million claim, it's a very acurate number for a group who have around 70 million copies certified by organizations like RIAA, BPI, ARIA and so on, also there are many sites who claim that too. Maybe you're the kind of fan who wants to inflate the sales like many Michael Jackson's fans did in the past with the Thriller album, they claimed that 100 million was the correct and actual number of sales for the album because that claim was everywhere. Maybe we can do an Rfc here and like the Thriller case change the 380 million claim to a more accurate claim based in the reliable cited organizations.--88marcus (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to miss my point above. So again WP editors cannot personally pick/decide which figure is the most realistic one and cherry pick a (low quality) source (that's a violation of WP:V and WP:OR). Instead they are supposed to report summarize what the most external sources state.

If you want the 70 million certified sales figure in the article, then include it, there is no issue with. If you want to to point out that the 380 million is merely label estimate, there is no issue with that either. But again you cannot do what you are currently doing since that is a policy violation.

And es i'm aware that label estimate can be problematic and there are known cases of intentional inflation, there is no dispute that. But the proper way to handle that is not by violating core policy but to properly summarize what is known from reliable sources.So you explicitly mention that the high number is merely label estimate or give the certified sales figure in addition or instead. But what you cannot do is cherry picking non-representative sources, because you personally think that figure might be more realistic, because that is violating core policies. Not to mention that the low quality source you use are by all likelihood just older outdated label estimates anyhow. --Kmhkmh (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

150 million records doesnt looks "wrong", when a group with oficially only 8 studio albums, a couple dozens of singles, 2 live albums and 7 compilations have 65 million copies certified available and is supported by RS publication(s). Their main market, certifications and sales have a based outside the United States. Some artists such as Madonna, Dire Straits or Julio Iglesias among the List of best-selling music artists have their certifications available of more than 51% outside USA. Contrary, a tons of artists such as Taylor Swift (see her difference: 181M certified in USA + streaming and only 36M outside), Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley and so on have their main certifications based in United States. Figures will vary among them, but in these two "type" of examples/"categories", a claim with more than 200/300/350 million etc vs. 65 million certified units looks mathematically questionable in their case, whatever is the market.

Music sales inflation exists and it's a common practice. However, I also noticed you have a part of the "other truth": claims of 200/300M etc is not a minor point of view in ABBA case; actually these figures represent the "majority" instead 150 million and we can't also be a judge of the information. My 2cents is keep both figures or all of them with a footnote. Example: ABBA sold 150 million records worlwide (footnote → "Additional sources place this figure somewhere between 150 and 380 million (refs)" or "Record sales may vary, other claims includes: 200, 250, 300, 380, 400 or even 450 million (refs)"). IMHO, this couldn't apply for all artists, since we need to analyze each case if is necessary like this one. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well one can make argument why 150 million might be more realistic than 380 and vice versa. I'm not really interested in that discussion, because at the end of the day that comes down to personal assessments/evaluation of various pro and con arguments by WP editors, so their private opinions and those have no place in WP articles. Personally i don't really care what the "true figure" is, I just want to make sure that this article follows core policies.

Personally I suspect that most sales figure for Abba between 100 and 400 million that you can find in most sources are label estimates anyhow just from different times (and different labels). How reliable thos estimates are is an open question, but we should not put outdated label estimates in the article to compensate sales inflation, we might suspect. But again my personal take is irrelevant for the article as well, the article simply needs to match core policies. The way to handle label estimate in WP is by stating clearly that there are label estimates. Other than that we simply reproduce the most common estimate from the best most authoritative publication or offer a range and stated certified sales in addition. But we can't really do what 88Marcus and some other editors associated [List of best-selling music artists]]-page keep pushing in here. That is pushing low quality sources over the most recent authoritative sources, just because they have the figure they believe to be true. I mean currently they push [1] over background articles on abba in major newspapers or books by music journalists as a source, which is completely unacceptable.

The List of best-selling music artists itself is strictly speaking a long standing policy violation, which I personally don't mind that much, as at least they clearly state in the article's lead, what they are doing, so readers know how those numbers are assembled and can make up their own mind. However pushing those figures into other articles based on low quality sources (and without further explanation) is really problematic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Luxembourg Chronicle is a reliable source and it's from 2019. The way you said seems like this source are from the 1990s! And about "most recent authoritative sources" that would be IFPI, RIAA, BPI and so on, any other claim seems circular. At that time you were including the 380 million claim, the source was BBC, which copy the content directly from Wikipedia versions. Only you are complaining about the 150 million source. If there is another person I think I should do an Rfc. Also, we can't included things in Wikipedia only because sites on internet are saying that, Wikipedia is not a deposit of website's informations, we have to be accurate with the content and add the 380 million claim would be the contrary of that.--88marcus (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry at this point I can't take that serious anymore. I don't know if you have issues with assessing sources or you want to push the 150 million figure no matter what or whatever the reason. If you keep pushing this source in the article then I'm going to escalate that as stated above.

If you want to use IFPI, RIAA, BPI to state/source the certified sales figure, go ahead, as already mentioned above i have no issue with that. The issue is merely with the source you keep pushing for the 150 million figure.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Do you see problem with that source and with that claim: "While figures vary, industry watchers agree that ABBA has sold at least than 200 million albums and singles worldwide" source link--88marcus (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I also saw that source from Forbes.com, but not sure if we can use it due WP:FORBESCON because is a "contributor" article. Although many times, the reliability also depends on the context. My early suggestion was pretty simple: keep all the claims —preferably the most recent publications— in a footnote (150 million + footnote explaniation) and let the reader choose what they want to believe or what is the(ir) "truth". I stronly oppose only have the 380M claim or more than 200M +, but if there is not a "consensus" the best option IMHO could be the current version without a figure. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Apoxyomenus: Ok for me. But the probleam is the same case of Thriller (again), the inflated claim was spread over the internet and would be hard to find a new 200 million claim for them. If we found maybe the text can be like you said: "Estimate album sales for ABBA are over 150 million records worldwide (with claims as high as 200 million sold)link"--88marcus (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thriller is a separate case and it already reached the consensus since a lot time ago. We don't need to do anything... And that case is kind of different additionally, because we have reliable sources indicating explicitly about that hoax/inflation in sales (as the MJ sales overall). Although are the "same problem" every artist and every album will be kind different and we need to evaluate separately when is needed. A footnote helps to advoid be the judge of information, especially when higher sales that we need to "avoid" are the "majority" and ABBA is one example. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I know. Maybe you could change the article and include the footnotes too. ;) --88marcus (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: disregard (if you want) previous message, I just read wrong. Yup, I understand your point, many artists have a consolidated figures with a large etc of sources over the time but are thanks to the circular reporting and circular references (WP:CIRCULAR) and Wikipedia helps a lot to create it. That's not only happens with music sales, is also with almost everything. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: The 200 million figure of Forbes article suffers essentially from the same issue, while as a source it is slightly better than the event announcement in chronicle.lu it is still not representative for the commonly published figures and it is still a low quality source compared to background articles on Abba in major newspaper or journals or books. There are enough of the latter two and can you cannot simply ignore them just to get the figure you want or to get a figure closer to List of best-selling music artists, because exactly that is violation of WP:V and WP:OR.

What you can do however without violating policy is:

• a) Only state the certified sales
• b) state the label estimate and the certified sales
• c) state a range rather than a single figure based on single figures and ranges given in various "high quality" sources
• d) write a special section (or footnote) on Abba Sales providing a variety a different figures given over time from reliable sources and explaining why high figures might appear dodgy (that's how German WP article handles the issue for instance)
• e) state the most common single figure cited in recent high quality sources
• f) state no figure

In the past the the article used mostly e), which apparently is to your disliking. I don't really care which of the 6 options is used, I only care about this article being policy compliant. In particular that means you cannot not cherry pick a source with a figure you personally like, while ignoring all the other often more reputable sources. That approach is a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Using sales claims from a record label usually is something that we need to avoid in my knowledge. Third-party sources are more acceptable. Even, in a early original version (2012) of that page used in German Wikipedia, we can see UMG cited a questionable source (ABBA.de). There aren't "most common single figure" or not matters how reliable is a source, because in ABBA's case range of estimations vary dramatically, so the problem you pointed out is virtually the same with that system (e.g: if we only put "ABBA sold between 300 to 400 million" ignoring the other lower claims if there is not a footnote). Please be advise, no matters the age or tenier of the references as you will see below. Usage of certified sales could be very unnatural in a biography and the List of best-selling music artists fulfills it with the internal link.

Sales in some examples

240 million records (1993 by Simon Garfield) 350 million records/+ (1999 by The Guardian/AFR) 100 million records (by James S. Olson in 1999; pag. 2) 250 million records (1999 by Swedish Institute; pag. 254) 215 million (until 1985) (Guinness World Records 1992; pag 488) 150 million records (Billboard; 1982) 350 million records (2000; by Sweden & America; pag 13, #1) 180 million (1980s), 250 million (1980s) to 350-400 million (2000s) (by Carl Magnus Palm in 2009) 250 million (by William Hartston in 1986; pag 16) 50 million (by an author called Joseph Murrells in 1984; pag 410) 50 million (by an author called David Dachs citing Atlantic Records in 1980; but citing only in four years) 53 million (by Christopher Andersen in 1986 citing only in four years) 350 million (by a promotional book Michelin Must Sees Las Vegas in 2003) 400 million (by academics Christine Lundberg, Vassilios Ziakas; 2018 citing ABBA website in a 2012 version) 500 million (by Fast Company; 2018) 140 million records (by Paste in 2018) 140 million (by BroadwayWorld in 2017) 400 million (by Los Angeles Times in 2012) 370 million (by BBC in 2012) 370 million (by CBC Canada in 2008) 380 million (The Telegraph in 2009) 380 million (by Evening Standard in 2020) 390 million (by a book of Marshall Cavendish in 2010; pag 1277) 375 million (by BBC in 2014) 375 million (by ABC News in 2010) 200 million+ (by BBC in 2012) 200 million (by Sky News in 2012) 200 million/+ (by Smooth Radio/Telegraph in 2012) 200 million (by BroadwayWorld in 2010) 360 million (by ABC News — Australia in 2007) 600 million (by The Post and Courier in 2020) 350 million (by Purdue University in 2014) 600 million (by Brown Paper Tickets in 2016) 600 million (by Vendini) 600 million (by Daily Republic in 2019)

As you can see above, those are only a few examples of the range that is very unusual and the problem with them exists since virtually late 70s/early 80s. Some of them are more "reputable" (as a source) than others, but are only examples, is not an exhaustive list. A range from a 70/80s artist with 100-110 million of "missing" sales (certifications) vs their claim figures is pretty understandable in most of them, but more than that, even 200-300-400 million is highly inflated, unless you as an artist have sold more than The Beatles or Elvis Presley. And please note that according to some publications such as the Guiness World Records the first four best-selling artists are: The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson and Madonna (and she sold an estimation of 300 million not 400 or more). That's why certification vs sales claims is a must, and is not only a whim from some Wikipedians. It may have errors and have not completeness (perhaps only 80/100 % in some of them to give a estimation) but if there a reliable sources (preferly more than 1 estimation as is given there) is pretty fine. Also, that's virtually impossible arguing something like "if ABBA sold (oficially) 250 million since 1990s, an estimation of 350-400 million in 2020 or since 2010s is more than acceptable". Is not possible and is a corollary, since they must have at least newer certifications as a proofs, and within the most higher markets as a plus, either with reissues, special editions or their official discography as with the Beatles case, Presley or MJ etc. Increase sales has been a common practice even by reliable sources, to say nothing for record labels and fans, but certifications exists to prove it. Please be advise, that there is something called "woozle effect", and these practices in sales matters are really easy to have a countless of "highly reliable sources" (despite if they are realist or not) and its pretty easy thanks to a circular reporting and circular references.

Sorry to have extended it, but I feel was necessary explain (and explain again) many of your points. I actually already gave in my first post in this talk page one of the "two best solutions": footnote indicading all possible sales and let the reader choose what is the truth for him/her and the other one is "state no figure". 88Marcus already agreed with the first one, and you said, that you don't have problems with both since you have included them in your list of "solutions". In the meantime, lets see if there more additional opinions --Apoxyomenus (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We are still talking past each other. I am well aware of issues with inflated sales, but we cannot replace possibly inflated sales with personal guess work or cherry picking nor can we assume fallacies like "because label X inflated sales for Y, so label A must have inflated sales for B", both is not allowed by core policies. Instead we are supposed to compile what the best sources say (which in the case of Abba would for be in 300 to 400 milion range).

Of course we should use use 3rd party sources (and only those). However one should be aware that in Abba's case (almost) all figures in 3rd party sources seem to be label estimates (from different labels at different times) rather than independent research/computations.

If 88Marcus is happy with any of the approaches a) to f) which don't pose direct policy violations, that's fine with me and we close the discussion, but in my reading of the discussion so far, he still seems to insist on cherry picking non representative figures. If he wants to use Forbes article with a footnote on the range and other authoritative sources (basically approach d)) that would work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)