Talk:List of best-selling albums

AC/DC

Where has this wild claim of 42 million come from? It barely reached No.1 anywhere. The citation given doesn't state it sold that much at all - in fact, the citation is wrong for all the albums. I refuse to believe that this album is the 2nd biggest selling album ever. I have heard that nowhere.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation does give a figure of 42 million, go right to the bottom. You don't have to believe the article. We are only here to report and cite the highest claim's made by sources. It's the best we can do without getting too complex. — Realist² 21:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that, but that's not good enough at all. I'd need a lot more proof than one person's estimations (he's probably a fan of AC/DC). It reached No.1 in the UK but was actually quite a low seller. The rest of his top 10 is reasonable - but no chart buff is going to believe that figure.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not one person's estimation, it's a reasonably reliable sites estimation, who knows how many people were actually involved in the research. If you don't believe it that's well within your right, but our job isn't to please readers, all we can do is report what other sources say. If the BBC said that AC/DC sold 90 million copies we would have no choice but to report it. Wikipedia really isn't about what is fair or even what's true. It's about reporting what third party sources say. — Realist² 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Good idea that you're putting in extra refs though as with Backstreet Boys. Anything to do with record sales is always going to be controversial.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

i think the sales os back in black, may be true, since they don't have "best of"albums, and back in black is the one that people tend to buy first(since it have their biggest hits) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.10.171.55 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One simple question - where's The Wall by Pink Floyd (over 30 mln units sold)?

We need a reliable source for worldwide sales (not US only). — Realist² 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is all the rap albums? I know Tupac's Makaveli albums sold more then 28 million copies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If we find reliable sources I promise we will report it. — Realist² 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found out the Tupac one only sold 8 million, but Eminem has two albums that should be one this list:

Marshell Mathers LP: 22 Million The Eminem Show: 21 Million

source: worldwidealbums.net/salesdata.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mariah Carey albums

I'm doubtful that Music Box sold 32 million copies (the general concensus on tke Mariah Carey Discography talk page is that the undercover.com.au reference is not a reliable source) and I know that Daydream did not sell anywhere near 31 million copies (the Nationmaster source is definitely bogus, it's actually a copy of an old -- and incorrect -- wikipedia article) Nathan86 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't alter sourced material, nowhere does this article state the claims should be treated as fact. It's just a record of the highest claims made by reliable third partly sources. We are not telling the reader that it is factually accurate, the lead say's this. — R² 19:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said though, Nationmaster is NOT a third party source but actually an old (factually incorrect) copy of the wikipedia Daydream article. Nathan86 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I'll remove the source and claim entirely, but the source you used wasn't much better. Anyway, we can wait till be have good sources. — R² 23:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid Theory needs moving up

It's official that Linkin Park's album Hybrid Theory has sold 29 million copies worldwide, and should be moved up in the charts.

Do you have a reliable third part source for that? — R² 19:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I got that from the article, which said it had sold 29 million copies. But it's now been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.58.84 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Back in Black

Brian Johnson said that in 2003 the sale of back in black was 42 millions copies but in 2009 the official count is 45 millions copies. BBC cant say AC/DC have sold about 90 millons albums cause they have sold more than 200 millions albums. AC/DC is saying it the´m self but also many our sources and other sites

We need a reliable third party source for the claim of 45 million. — R² 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)]

okay i try to find the source for the 45 millions i cant remember where i found it.

OK. — R² 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Back in black sold?

Here back in black sold 46 millions from 1980 to september-oktober 2008

Here is the source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB7-Y4_ZYJE

From 1:40-1:55 they talk about it. And Brian Johnson (The singer in AC/DC) says 46 millions sold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theacdcfan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't use youtube as a source. — R² 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead: OK, Computer

It could be mentioned that OK Computer is believed to be amongst the best selling albums of all time - though the band/EMI aren't willing to release the exact figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.112.89 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We only mention figures, maybe we can find sources. It needs to have sold at least 20 million to be on the list. — R² 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

haha radio head no way sells that much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Eminem

Marshell Mathers LP: 22 Million / The Eminem Show: 21 Million

source: worldwidealbums.net/salesdata.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source. — R² 21:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Vida

http://www.speedylook.com/Iron_Butterfly.html

http://www.last.fm/user/sablespecter/journal/2008/07/02/21ti37_song_of_the_day_-_01_jul_2008;in-a-gadda-da-vida

Thanks for the links, unfortunately they do not meet Wikipedia's sourcing criteria (found here). — R² 19:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

There is something wrong. Why there aren't more Pink Floyd Albums on the list ? The Wall got 23 times platinum in the usa. --213.211.253.17 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a source for worldwide sales, not US certifications, particularly when the RIAA certifies double disk albums differently. — R² 15:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eminem's albums?

I know Eminem's Marshell Mathers LP and The Eminem show both sold at least more then 20 million... Why isn't he on this list?

What's your source? — R² 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles - This article is inaccurate as evidenced by the ommission of the Beatles proper album sales accounting. They are listed as the best selling artist of all-time in worldwide sales on that list with sales of over 1 Billion. Only Elvis Presley can make that claim. And yet on this list, the Beatles highest selling album is "Sgt.Peppers" in the 10th spot with only 32 million sold. They also have "Abbey Road" at 30 million on this list and the album "#1's" at 30 million sold, both in the top 18, but no more in the rest of the list. They did not put out enough albums to account for the disparity, so this list is inaccurate. In other words, according to this list, The Beatles have ony 3 albums in the top 60 accounting for 92 million sold. What accounts for the other 910 million sold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAMason (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles

This article is inaccurate as evidenced by the ommission of the Beatles proper album sales accounting. They are listed as the best selling artist of all-time in worldwide sales on that list with sales of over 1 Billion. Only Elvis Presley can make that claim. And yet on this list, the Beatles highest selling album is "Sgt.Peppers" in the 10th spot with only 32 million sold. They also have "Abbey Road" at 30 million on this list and the album "#1's" at 30 million sold, both in the top 18, but no more in the rest of the list. They did not put out enough albums to account for the disparity, so this list is inaccurate. In other words, according to this list, The Beatles have ony 3 albums in the top 60 accounting for 92 million sold. What accounts for the other 910 million sold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAMason (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Total worldwide sales for artists such as The Beatles, Elvis, Jackson etc are all over the top exaggerations. Also, note that this article is about albums only, it doesn't include singles. — R² 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be correct that total worldwide sales are inaccurate, because an undertaking so large would be very difficult to get right. But there is really no debate, nor credible argument, that proposes successfully that The Beatles are not the best selling artist of all time. By any legitimate source or reference it is indisputable that the Beatles are the best selling music artist of all-time.

So the issue remains, if the article ranking worldwide sales by all music artist is to reflect a semblance of accuracy it needs to recognize facts, including the disaprity between the article stating total album sales in relation the the article stating total sales by an artist or band. I have looked at your personal page, and its clear that you are a huge Michael Jackson fan, and I respect that, but we need to put our bias' aside in relation to contributions to Wikipedia. MichaelAMason MichaelAMason (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC) (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why me being a Michael Jackson fan is relevant to this issue? All we are doing if finding reliable sources for album sales. If you happen to find more sources for the sales of other Beatles albums, please, insert them. Also, wikipedia does not use other wikipedia articles as a source of reference. — R² 01:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right R2. This is the first article in Wikipedia that I have ever commented on. I believe in and use Wikipedia often. However I do not know the protocal, and if my comments were done wrong or were inappropriate I apologize. In that spirit I am leaning on sources such as you who actually do the research, and then complain about it. I respect your efforts, however I need to do my own research, cite my references, and then post them, and I will do so.

In regards to the article we are discussing here, the inaccuracy is clear, and in the spirit of accuracy I just wanted to point that out, so that we can get it right. I want you to know that as a little boy Michael Jackson was a hero of mine (I am 48)I watched him every Saturday morning on TV, so I do not dislike him. Perhaps because your personal Wikipedia site touts him so highly, I perceived a bias in your contention that my observation was incorrect, by dismissing my contention when you say, "The Beatles, Elvis, Jackson etc are all over the top exaggerations". I am a musician and read about music often, there is no credible debate about who is the all-time highest selling worldwide artist, its not even close, they double the artist in second place. Therefore the article we are discussing should reflect that reality and it doesnt. I will do the research and post the results shortly. MichaelAMason (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. No one is saying this is a complete list. If you can find the sales figures of the other Beatles albums, and so long as they have sold more than 20 million copies, please add them. Another possibility, the Beatles might have releases many albums that sold 19 million copies each, thus they are not on the list. — R² 01:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thriller

Sorry to beat this topic to death, but I have a problem with the sales figures for Thriller and the discussion definitely deserves a separate area, not just lumped in with other album discussions. It seems that, every year, someone brings up this topic and then it gets relegated to the archives. I have no doubt that it is the largest selling album of all time, but I feel that use the 109 million sales figure is inaccurate. This sentiment is widespread among people who follow album sales, and I do not want this to sound like 'sour grapes' or 'anti-MJ', I simply think that it merits a closer look.

First, most albums do not have so much controversy about sales figures. It is undisputed, for example, that Back in Black's sales figures are in the range of 45 million, although there is some quibbling about the exact number. Thriller, on the other hand, has different sources that range from too 47 million to 109 million. That is quite a huge range from which to choose. I see that you have several sources cited for the 109 million figure, but I have to question their veracity. Just because a few journalists say something is true does not make it so, all that means is that they read it off of a press release. I am confident that this is due to inflation of sales figures by Quincy Jones and/or MJ.

I read the previous comments that it is not the job of Wikipedia to 'get to the truth' but to simply 'report valid sources'. In certain cases, I feel that the mission of Wikipedia is best served with honesty and truth in reporting if there is a huge discrepancy between various sources rather than simply choosing the highest number. In my opinion, that would best be served by either reporting that Thriller's sales estimates are a range or to use a more reliable source that simply a few journalists/editors/publications who may or may not have exercised due diligence in fact checking their stories.

I recommend that this reliable source would be the Guinness Book of World Records, which is the international gold standard for such things. I believe that Guinness places sales figures for Thriller to be in the neighborhood of 65 million, but someone please confirm this for me.

Am I totally off base in making this request? I am thinking of another figure which is greatly disputed, which is the death toll from the Holocaust. In the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust, the authors did not simply use the largest available figure, but researched the topic in order to use a figure that has been widely accepted and validated by peer research.

Thanks.

DFS (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, firstly, as you probably know, Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability, that is the official policy of Wikipedia. We don't pull all the sources together and come at some "average", that would be original research. The only requirement for inclusion on Wikipedia is that the source is reliable, regardless of how absurd the claims made in the source might sound to some. So why do we accept the 109 figure over other figures? We treat Thriller the same as every other album on this page, we present the highest figure made by a source that complies with WP:RS regardless of our personal opinions. — R² 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DFS, the figures for "Thriller" appear to me to be so high as to reduce the credibility of the whole article. None of the sources quoted for the figure seem to me to be reliable (they all appear to be journalists using numbers whose sources cannot be validated). The RIAA estimate of 54 million for worldwide sales (quoted for example as at "//www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20687") are in line with the Guinness estimates (within the obviously large margins that this topic requires). It appears to me that this one album is not treated "the same as every other album on this page", its numbers appear to me to be taken from the most extreme sources, while the other albums are required to have more notable sources. While I can believe that "Thriller" sold more copies than any other album, the claim that it sold more than twice as many copies as 'any' other album is just unbelievable and if it should be corrected. Steve.hawtin (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)