Talk:List of best-selling albums/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Why music box sold over 32 million copies

Music Box maybe has sold 32 million worldwide TO DATE because in 1994 Sony released a statement that it has sold 23 million copies worldwide so compare the span of 2010 minus 1994., it has been 16 years ago since that sales figure occur so by estimated sales it must be definitely 32 its just an estimation and all of the albums in best selling albums of all time are just estimation. I do really have a feeling that these persons lowering the sales of Mariah are I'm not gonna name by i think u have a clue.... http://media.gunaxin.com/the-top-selling-albums-of-all-time/23419

anyways i'm still going to find better source but i doubt that the live nation store's sales figures because they're just getting those sales figures from websites mainly in wikipedia., Still i'm fighting that Music Box really did sell 32 million copies up to now 2010..

Hey i found a more reliable source by YAHOO.com here it is http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/18000196644/bio read it further you will see 32 million on the fifth paragraph and it is reliable though,,,

—Preceding unsigned comment added by REGICUAZA (talk • contribs) 18:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 

Guns N' Roses- Appetite for Destruction

check out its own wikipedia page, it has sold 33 million, not 28 like you suggest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.146.106 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Immaculate Collection

The album "Immaculate Collection" from Madonna must be in the 26-30 million copies category. See the wikipedia-article "Immaculate Collection", quotation "the album is best-selling compilation ever released by a female artist, with more than 30 million copies sold worldwide". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.16.227 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

With the realease of illmatic on mixtapes nas took his argument to the streets. With the smash hit ether nas clearly states rhymes of disliking, Jay-Z."I am the truest name another rapper i aint influenced" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.221.137 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Where were some of these figures gleaned from. Its widely reported that Thriller has sold about 50M+...and not the 110M reported on here. There are some wide of the mark figures on here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.38.121 (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

It needs moving up again www.last.fm claims its sold 42 million copies as of 2009. Source: http://www.last.fm/music/Linkin+Park/+wiki

^^First of all, please sign. Second, look at the bottom of that page "Registered users can edit this page. Sign up now, it’s free and you will discover so much great music :)

All user-contributed text on this page is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. Text may also be available under the GNU Free Documentation License. " I don't thinks this counts as a reliable source... MarthsBullet (talk) 02:48, 11 December 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)

Ok Computer has Sold around 7,500,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.103.177 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 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)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2000s_in_music#Top_25_Best-Selling_Albums_.28Worldwide.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.201.20 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 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)

All the sources used for Thriller pass the requirements of WP:RS, as do all the other sources on this article. In fact, we should be treating the Thriller claim will more respect because it uses multiple sources rather than one. Ukmix is blacklisted on wikipedia because it is unreliable. — R² 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I see that you are correct to question the UKMIX data. However I still think your reluctance to adopt a more neutral position reduces the credibility of the whole article. Steve.hawtin (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But none of the claims in the article take a "neutral" position. For every album we take the highest figure presented by a reliable source (as made crystal clear in the lead), in that respect it is neutral. Why should Thriller be treated any different to any other album on the list? That's the real bias. — R² 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A range of sales is used (100-109 million) so it is already deviating from the lead text which says the highest total from a reliable source is used. Shouldn't 109 million be used because it is the highest? How is listing a range of 54-109 million any different? Picking the highest is also misleading at best if other reliable sources quote different numbers. bryan986 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is taking the highest from a verifiable source. We should just take the range. On top of which, some of these respected sources are dubious (the Reuter's is a press release from a Radio station, MTV is a quote from MJ himself. You'll also find many verifiable sources claiming that eskimos has hundreds or words for snow although this has been debunked years ago. If verifiable sources contradict themselves then it is double important that the range is given not the highest. The BBC quotes the Guinness Book gives 65 million copies. It's absurd to ignore such a disparity. Besides the higher sales get the more likely they get inflated and repeated http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8121749.stm 203.196.81.85 (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

By the logic being used here, I would like to point out that my personal demo album sold 670 Million copies in its first 6 minutesof release. Because I am the most authoritative person on that topic, obviously my opinion should therefore merit inclusion in this article. Of course, this is ridiculous. The appropriate measure is the combined tallies of the worldwide recording industry authorities. The Beatles record company claimed they sold a billion records, but there are only records for about 240 million. The artist's word doesnot make it true. 55 Million is about the right figure for Thriller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencedunne (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Also I would like to point out again this Guinness picture (you must enlarge pictureSo according to Guinness Michael Jackson is first entertainer to have officially ratified sales of more than 100 million albums outside the USA. and thriller sold 104 million

http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/7691/photos/PHOTO_4351584_7691_7734553_main.jpg

Inconsistent Category

why is the grouping not continuous? One ends at 49 million, and then the next one is "over 100 million", with nothing in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.153 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Eagles Greatest Hits

It has been stated by various credible sources including Time Magazine that the Eagles Greatest Hits album has sold more copies than Thriller, although I have also read that the music industry does not recognize compilations as albums. However, this should not alter their sales figures, which are likely greater than Thriller's.

To my understanding "The Eagles Greatest Hits Volume 1" is the all-time highest selling record in the United States (as is indicated in the article List of best-selling albums in the United States). However, this record did not sell anywhere near as many copies overseas as Thriller did, as it seems the Eagles are not recognized internationally to the extent that Jackson is. The sources you speak of are making true statements, they are just ambiguous to the region being covered.

Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Colours used for album types

I think the blue and green used to highlight different types of albums need to be changed to more distinguishable colours - they don't show up very well on this laptop (I only noticed them when viewing the screen at a distorted angle), and I'm worried this may be the case for other people too. Could the colours not be changed to 2 colours that are more contrasting? (and for the record, I have no sort of colour-blindness that I am aware of :P ) Geqo (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the blue and green show up okay on most monitors without being as distracting as more pronounced colors. I think that the gray is what needs to change as it matches that column headers. It sort of makes it seem like the grey albums denote some sort of formating within the table rather than a catergory of album.

Solidstatesurvivor (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Bat out of hell did not sold 43 million copies

Bat Out of Hell I & Bat Out of Hell II sold 48 à 50 million copies combined. [1] Bat Out of Hell II sold over 15 million copies worldwide.[2][3] So the figures for Bat Out of Hell I are very inflated. The album sold maximum 40 million copies, but surely not 43 million copies. In the US only 14 million copies are sold. The album sold 200,000 copies a year.

Besides, the mentioned source is not really reliable (blog.cleveland). What can we say about Steve Popovich? Is it possible that he made a mistake by saying that the album sold 43 million copies. At the same moment various sources claim 34 million copies!! Is it possible to change this in the article. 43 million should be changed in (maximum) 40 million copies.Christo jones (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it says "blog" does not mean that it's automatically unreliable, believe it or not. — Please comment R² 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That answer is too easy. Believe it or not? The source is incorrect!Christo jones (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The Independent claims 37 million copies in November 2007[4]
2. The Judicial View claims 30 million copies (after the court) in November 2007 [5]

Christo jones (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Many citations quoted for this list.

I cannot believe some of the "accepted" "citations - many of these are newspaper articles where someone simply stated aloud what the sales were - take the person sueing Sony for royalties and such who simply stated the Meatloaf sales were 46 million...how is THAT a verifiable source? This should be a simple matter of looking at annual RIAA sales numbers shouldn't it? Others are a publicity release that is not even affiliated with the group but are a local group publicizing a show or such...again, I ask, how is this a "source" for actual numbers? Can I simply publish an editorial stating the Beatles sold 6 trillion and state it as a source? It seems that is all that is needed....disappointing..12.220.194.2 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys Millenium is another bad example. Articles cited have no sources. Data soundscan US sales of around 12 million, 1.5 million in downloads, 3-5 million in other countries. This adds up to around 17-18 million, nowhere close to 40 million. --Edgamart (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ac/dc vs. pink floyd

ok, how come that, all of a sudden, back in black has 49 mil and the dark side of the moon only 40 mil? it's a well known fact that they share that position at about 45 mil both. so how come that there's now a 9 million gap between them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WichitaQ (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi you´ve forgotten eltos greatest hits which sold 26 mio times ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.160.191 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Back in Black has always been noted as selling 43-44 million copies . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.62.61 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Bat out of hell did not sold 43 million copies, and surely nog 48 million copies

Bat Out of Hell I & Bat Out of Hell II sold 48 à 50 million copies combined!!! [6] Bat Out of Hell II sold over 15 million copies worldwide.[7][8] So the figures for Bat Out of Hell I are very inflated.

Bat I sold about 40 million copies, but surely not 43 million copies or 48 million, like it's mentioned in the article. In the US only 14 million copies are sold. The album sold 200,000 copies a year. The mentioned source is NOT reliable, an official site of a musician that played on the album is NOT reliable. Is it possible to change this error please? There are enough reliable sources claiming that the album sold 40 million copies.Christo jones (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I found a reliable source (of Reuters) that states that Bat Out of Hell I sold 43 million copies (probably a figure that is stolen from Wikipedia and thus totally incorrect), but it's a reliable source and better than the highly inflated figure of 48 million.[9]Christo jones (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book I

I was wondering shouldn't History be in the 40 million category?? Im not sure if this list is similiar to USA Best Selling list which some double albums like "Double Live" and "The Wall" are counted twice but if it is History should be on the 40 million category. ITalkTheTruth (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Originally this list may not contain double albums. History (1995) sold maximum 20 million copies/packages worldwide, so History should not be in the 40 million category. Pink Floyd's The Wall sold over 30 million packages (already 19 million packages worldwide in 1990, source: NYtimes), so The Wall should be on this list when History stays in this list.Christo jones (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

the album sold 20 million not 40 million what is going on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.147.138 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Prince - Purple Rain?

"The popular American pop artiste Prince debuted with the movie. Along with The Revolution, he composed the soundtrack too, which went on to be ranked by Time magazine as the 15th greatest album of all time. The album went platinum 13 times over, winning Prince three Grammy awards and an Oscar for the best original score for the title song. It has sold 20 million copies." - http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=NLetter&id=40e182fc-061c-43d5-832e-ff930aa4a508&Headline=Those+chart+busters

Maads (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Madonna

The source used, madonna.com, is not good, because you need 3rd party sources. Also, it is incorrect. True Blue did sell indeed 24 million, but The Immaculate Collection sold somewhere between 26-28 million. --16:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk • contribs)

additional possible albums

ok, here's a few things to consider... i'm not good at adding them in the table or searching for sources, but here's some that should be in the list:

Oasis - (What's the Story?) Morning Glory Elton John - Elton John's Greatest Hits Garth Brooks - No Fences Simon % Garfunkel - Simon and Garfunkel's Greatest Hits

i don't know how to find the sources and how to add them to the table, but someone who's keen on it could improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.53.113 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I think that The Beatles White album has been accidently omitted from this list. As far as I know, it is the best selling Beatles album with 19 million sold in the US alone according to RIAA. Could someone please investigate this. Thanks

ANSWER FOR THE WHITE ALBUM

Hi, i made search and the white album was a double album, so the 19x platinum WAS FOR THE TWO ALBUMS SO THE TOTAL ALBUM SALES IN THE US FOR THE WHITE ALBUM IS 9.5 MILLIONS (APPROXIMATIVELY) I FOUND THE INFO ON ROLLING STONE (500 GREATEST ALBUMS OF ALL TIME) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.41.89.166 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I worked for the largest record retailer in the Midwest and the Capitol salesman came in every month for orders for our record warehouse(we warehoused Capitol)and he always said that the White album was by far the Beatles biggest selling album with sales of almost twice what the next best selling album was, usually Abbey Road or Sgt. Pepper, so I think that the RIAA numbers are for the White album set of 19 Million copies, not 9.5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugginduff (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but i have here the proof of my theory and it is right here on wikipedia: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/RIAA_certification#Multi-disc so the sales of the White Album in the USA were really at 9,5 million, so probably 16-17 million in the world and also the best-selling album in the USA is Abbey Road —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.240.229 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I spoke with an EMI salesman today, and he confirmed that, at least for the US market and for the last ten years, the best selling Beatles album is the White Album, then Abbey Road, then Sgt. Pepper. I didn't feel it appropriate to give the actual numbers but there it is, the RIAA numbers are incorrect.

Does This Page Seem Credible to you? If not, read the following

After posting on this article months ago I just revisited. The RIAA page seems to be a much more reliable source. The page just seems more credible to me, and cites actual tabulated certified sales which is what the RIAA exist for. So rather than be frustrated with this page I would just reccomend that you seek out [[10]] which speaks to who they are and check out the following link [[11]] to view a listing that seems more credible to me in my opinion. --MichaelAMason (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)MichaelAMason ac/dc BACK IN BLACK has always had a comparable sales number to Meat Loaf's BAT OUT OF HELL which is 43 million, how did another 6 million get added? This is not a fan page it should be factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.25.181 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I worked for the largest record retailer in the Midwest and the Capitol salesman came in every month for orders for our record warehouse(we warehoused Capitol)and he always said that the White album was by far the Beatles biggest selling album with sales of almost twice what the next best selling album was, usually Abbey Road or Sgt. Pepper, so I think that the RIAA numbers are for the White album set of 19 Million copies, not 9.5 million.

....

The RIAA Numbers are by disc and not by units sold therefore making them a fairly unreliable list since there could be a 4 disc box set that would be counted 4 sales per unit. Also, they only take into account United States sales. This article isn't exactly a credible source for record sales figures, but it's more all encompassing than the RIAA list. For the RIAA list, let me direct you here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States 96.243.34.93 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term "illegal downloading" in the link is not credible. That is argumentative propaganda that links to the article on "file sharing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.107.7 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Table change

I'm going to jump in and change the table here to reflect the ability to properly sort the ratings, because the use of the "sort" function onthe table is erroneous if you can't do a complete sort, isn't it? --rm 'w avu 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitney

Shouldn't Whitney Houston's Whitney album be in the list, it is sold nearly 21 million. So, shouldn't it be in the list?

Also, Michael Jackson's bad album should be in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

agreed. as definately more than 30 million units of BAD - once the 2nd best selling album of all time! - have been sold, it just has to be included here.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.37.168 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad - 32 mill

Found a source that claims 32 million. While I d not have the books that this page uses as its sources, it does list quite a number. Thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentoned under my own subtitle (Michael Jackson's Bad Album World Wide Sales) on this page the British Broadcasting Company states that the album has sold AT LEAST 30 million copies: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7448908.stm This is one of the world's most trustworthy news agencies. Could somebody put this album on the list of best selling albums worldwide? It is now completely missing from there and I find myself unable to edit it myself. (still learning Wikipedia!) Hmustone (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's Bad Album World Wide Sales

The Bad album of Michael Jackson sold at least 80+ million copies since the release of this album. (missing from best selling albums worldwide)

Reference 1:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7448908.stm

{{editsemiprotected}}

This is correctly noted in Wikipedia's Bad album page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bad_(album)

However, there is a mistake in the Bad album page itself as it states: "Globally, it is Jackson's overall fourth best-selling recording, behind Thriller, Dangerous and HIStory with 30 million units sold.[10]", because accordingto to this page History has sold 20 million copies. Hmustone (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found a figure of 32 million on a Michael Jackson website, but I'm sure the BBC is far more reliable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This could very well be true as BBC's site stated at least 30m copies. Hmustone (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm...what's the edit, exactly? Tim Song (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The edit would be the following: add Michael Jackson's Bad album to the list into the correct spot with 30 Million albums sold worldwide (currently this album is completely missing from the list). I have mentioned the BBC reference above. Thanks Hmustone (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hi! A new, greater number of Bad album sales has been calculated. This figure is in total 33,2 Million copies (see "Estimation Mondiale", which means world-wide estimate), here is the link to the website: http://fanofmusic.free.fr/BestSellers.php?Act=Michael_Jackson Could you please update the article "List of best-selling albums worldwide" concerning the Bad album sales. Thanks! (Hmustone (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Not done: Sorry, that site does not seem to be a reliable source for information. Celestra (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitney still not added

Shouldn't Whitney Houston's second album Whitney be in the list, it has sold 21 million copies, you can find it here on wikipedia. It would be much appreciated if you could add it to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.144.230 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd's The Wall

Did it really sell 30 million copies or 30 million units? In the US its certified 23 million copies for 11.5 million copies sold. The rest of the world I think maybe Im wrong doesnt count albums as double disk but one individual album.

The Wall:

Country	Certification	Sales	Last certification date	Comment
Argentinia	Platinum	200,000+	23 August 1999
Australia	8× Platinum	560,000+
Canada	2× Diamond	2,000,000+	31 August 1995
France	Diamond	1,000,000
Germany	4× Platinum	2,000,000	1994
Greece		100,000
United Kingdom	Platinum	300,000
United States Nielsen Soundscan		5,381,000+	16 February 2008	Nielsen began tracking sales data on 1 March 1991
United States RIAA	23× Platinum	11,500,000+	29 January 1999	8× Platinum on 28 May 1991

Total = 19.66 million copies. A Star Is Here (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

if it has gone 23 times platinum in usa why does it end up with 11 million. sholudn't it be 23 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.10.38 (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wall comes in different versions. The RIAA counts double-disc albums as "2 units" for certification purposes, so every sale of The Wall in its double-disc form counts twice. I believe that some cassette and some CD versions come in 1-disc version, so sales as these would only count once. Thus, the # of copies sold is about half (but not exactly, due to differences between formats) of the RIAA certification figures. --Jayron32 15:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wall sold at least 13,5 million copies in the US only, namely 8 million certified copies until 1991. Since 1991 (Soundscan period) the album sold over 5,4 million copies in the US. If the RIAA counts one sale of the album as 2 units, than The Wall should be certified as 27 times platinum. According to the New York Times the album sold between 1979 and 1990 about 19 million copies (double albums) worldwide. So, it's surely possible that The Wall sold another 11 million copies since 1991.Floydian Tree (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Billy Joel

Billy Joel's Greatest Hits Volumes I & II has sold 21 million copies in the United States. Shouldn't that album be on here?75.142.54.211 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Other sources claim the album sold 10 million copies. IGG8998 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

2Pac

2Pac's "The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory" should be on the list. He has sold more than 28 million copies worldwide according to the IMDB as well as in the wikipedia. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000637/bio. Please add this album to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.248.131 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Boston/Boston

Where is this album, I thought it has sold over 50 Million Worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.132.186 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

GNR Lies and Use Your Ilusion I & II/ Guns N' Roses

Use Your Ilusion I has sold 24 million copies worldwide, Use Your Ilusion II has sold 25 million copies and GNR Lies 21 million.--83.35.225.26 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, source? I'm not doubting you, and I'm a huge G'N'R fan, but seriously. MarthsBullet (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• looks up UYI2 on this site* DANG you're right, I wish they didn't lock this page MarthsBullet (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the mans right, Use Your Illusion 2 has sold 24 million world wide and Use Your Illusion 1 has sold 21 million, lies has only sold around 10 million, I give you the links in a sec —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britannia10 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses- Appetite for Destruction

check out its own wikipedia page, it has sold 33 million, not 28 like you suggest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.146.106 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

the miseducation of lauryn hill

lauryn hill sold 20 million copies with "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill".

Bad methodology for determining sales...

The article is a mess in terms of references. The major problem is that the data for the sales numbers comes from many different sources from many different dates. If album X has information from 2005 and album Y has information from 2009, then how can we compare the two. Furthermore, there is little indication on the methodology each source arrived at the number. Newspaper 1 reports one set of figures, and newspaper 2 reports a different set of figures with no indication on how the two arrived at those numbers. It is entirely possible that the two sources compiled their data using different methods, which would make a comparison unreliable between the two sources. What we need is a single, widely-accepted, source for ALL albums, which would eliminate the problems the article currently has. As it stands now, the numbers are incomparible because there is no consistancy in how the numbers are compiled or reported. --Jayron32 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marley - Legend

Bob Marley & The Wailers- Legend sold 25 million copies, not 20, that is said in wikipedias own bob marley article, check the reference there if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.131.111 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

History

{{editsemiprotected}} the(Michael Jackson cd) History ;past, present, future is not linking with album page, can someone with access please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.114 (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Done--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Eminem Both OF Eminem albums The Marshal Mathers LP and The Eminem Show have sold 19 million copies worldwide according to wikipedia pages for the se two albums.Therefore they should NOT be on the list of the biggest selling albums worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.207.174 (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

multiple disc albums

first of all, my apologies if my english is not that great, its not my first languange. I was just wondering how double-albums are counted. recently I read about albums containing more than one disc being counted as one unit when they dont cross a certain timelimit, therefore albums with 2 gramophonerecords are usually seen as one album unit since 2 of them do not contain more than about 70 minutes in total.

but in the cd era, it is possible to have multiple disc albums, with each of them containing over 70 minutes each. should they not be counted as 2 units? usually when an album contains so much music it's also about twice the amount of money you usually pay for a one disc album, making it an extra feat. (instead of the more regular bonus discs added, which usually contain just a few songs and dont increase the price very much)

noticed that jackson's history album is set at 20 million sold, if seen in units, should this not be 40 million? perhaps other albums with this format also actually deserve a higher scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surin070 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

These are the HIGHEST sales figure reported

I bet that 99% of the readers don't know about this. They just scroll down to the actual list and take them as the MOST RELIABLE sales figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagen HD (talk • contribs) 07:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the most inaccurate list on the web. No wonder they call wikipedia an unreliable source. I, myself, am a chart expert and this list makes my laugh so hard.