Talk:Mariah Carey albums discography/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

I'm Requesting a Change

{{tlx|editprotected}} I'm the one who have asked for the full protection for this article. Now I would like to ask for making changes in Mariah Carey discography. Many of the singles peaks are wrong (too many to mention here). I would like to fix them, as I did lately to all Carey related articles. I would like also to format the chart table a bit. Thank. Max24 (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You have my full support. There is too much information that is either wrong, inflated, or unreferenced. This article needs clean-up. BalticPat22Pat 22:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Edit protected" doesn't work that way: it's not that you ask permission, you have to provide the changes and ask an admin to do them. I created a sandbox copy for you: edit that version, and, when the changes are complete, we can get an admin to include them.—Kww(talk) 22:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted what was in your sandbox. I hope that's sufficient. Thank you for your work. Enigma^msg 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Max24 (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm Requesting a Small Change

{{editprotected}}I have a better and more recent source (sony music) for her total album sales (200 million albums wordwide), so if someone could please change it. The source is http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/MariahCarey/ . Thank you, im really appreciate it.--Maester Seymour (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No support. First, you're a sock puppet of Petergriffin9901. Second, the source of yours is from Carey's old label Sony Music which she left in 2000. The source included in the article is the latest form Carey's current record label Island Def Jam Music Group posted on Carey's official website in June 2009. And your source is not "more recent" as it is from October 2008 and it was inflated by Sony Music which was releasing at that time The Ballads. Max24 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Change Source for Sales

I would like to change the source for sales on a few albums...they are music box, daydream, charmbracelet, the emancipation of mimi, butterfly, rainbow, the current source is http://www.ticketspecialists.com/concerts/mariah_carey_tickets.htm and id like to change it to this source http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687 ...thank you and please express your opinion...--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You won't change it for Undercover. It was explained already. Just for example, it says that Music Box sold 32 million.

• Universal Music Group Korea list the sales at 25 million. Although this is a fansite, ties in with what has been reported by Universal over the years [1]

• From TSort (1993 - 2008)[2] = 25 million Global claimed, 20 - 27 million claimed on Internet.
• From Entertainment wire Press Release (1998) [3] - 24 million.
• From New York Times Press Release (2002) [4] = 23 Million.
• From Universal Music Group Korea (2004) [5] = 25 million.
• From publication "The Story Behind 50 Years of Great Recordings": Outline Press Ltd (2005) - ISBN 1-59223-295-7 = 27 million.
• From Live8 Mariah Biography (2005) [6] = 24 million.

Therefore from all the verified sources (Press Releases, Record Company, publications) - the figure is 23-27 million. From one source that does not state where primary source detail is from (Undercover.au) - has highest figure, does not meet criteria as being a notible Press source compared to the others, and is so varient to the others, has limited credibility. Wikipedea has policy on using verified sources, as well as concensus WP:RS, and this has not been met by the one source being used. Therefore as the publication of 2005 meets all criteria, this should be adopted. The article on Undercover.com.au is adding to every album few millions so all these numbers are fake. Max24 (talk) 08:36,03 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of analysis that needs to be done when sources disagree. Thanks, Max24.—Kww(talk) 11:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So then can you tell me what sources you would accept that figure from?if i showed you that source from billboard or reuters, would you accept?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Both would stand a good chance. No one would make promises in advance, though. Remember: the goal is to provide the most accurate figure, not the one most favorable to Carey. If you find alternate figures from other sources that you feel are more accurate, you should always feel free to bring them up. Any figure from any source that falls way outside of the 23-27M range in this case is going to be suspect, just because it disagrees with so many other sources.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what your saying kww, but i have already found a more reliable and alternate source for that figure, im just going to look for others so my change has concrete and more than one source...thanks to both of you and ill present my new sources shortly..--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Singles table

hey guys, firstly wow what a long talk page! and all it seems to be about is people trying to boost up her sales figures. just by looking through the sources for some of them they are from really unreliable sources that have no place in wikipedia whatsoever. but thats not why i'm here.

• is is really necessary to have 4 different US charts? every country has different charts for pop, dance, r&b etc and they're not allowed to be included so why the US?
• the table is very long is quite confusing and is quite difficult to read. can i suggest splitting the table to make it more coherant and easier to navigate. For example into Singles, As featured artist, Other charted songs inc. promo's etc. By looking at FA status articles it works very well and looks good.
• the table is also very confusing because it gives no indication that not all songs were released in all countries. so footnotes should be added. ie; released only in the UK, released only as a promo in Asia etc etc

If we want the articles to reach FA status no way is it gonna pass how it is, it needs a tidy up. let me know what you think of my ideas :) Mister sparky (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

also can i suggest the albums table being split, into studion, compilation etc. it is also very long and confusing as it is. what do you think? Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll make my usual plea: sourcing. Each and every figure should have a ref next to it, where clicking that ref provides a page that directly verifies the figure. Refs per column and refs per row are grossly inadequate and vandalism prone.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

i take it that wasnt meant for this talk page? Mister sparky (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it was. If people are going to redo this discography, then they should place a reference immediately next to every figure while they are at it. Refs per column and refs per row are grossly inadequate and vandalism prone.—Kww(talk) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

okay i was just confused because the changes i proposed had nothing to do with references. altho i definitely agree that all figures have to be sourced. any views on my proposed changes? Mister sparky (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Total Album Sales

I have looked and found many reliable sources supporting that she has sold 200 million albums worldwide. these are the sources, feel free to comment thanks!

http://www.fuse.tv/music/polls/poll10.html

http://www.mtv.com.au/news/5fe43941-mariah-punks-eminem/

http://www.tower.com/ballads-mariah-carey-cd/wapi/112984532

http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/reality-tv/piers-morgan-admires-mariah-careys-diva-like-behaviour/

http://www.theinsider.com/news/2281938_Official_UK_Mariah_Carey_Press_Release_New_Album_Out_24_August_2009

Everyone please give your opinion and explain...thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Someone asked me to check this out and the sources seem to be in order. --Yodamace1 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT Agree, her official record company is the most reliable source than any other websites.Bluesatellite (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Idividual Album Sales

Right somebody has upped the sales of each album and changed the source. What they've upped the album sales too is total sales that have been removed before because they were not reliable. Should I revert them? Jayy008 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Studio albums vs. "other" albums

Glitter and Mariah's Christmas album should not be included in the Studio album section because they are not proper studio albums. Glitter is an OST (Original Soundtrack) and a Christmas album does not qualify for Studio album status. Please place these albums in the proper category.

You have not simply added these albums in a proper category, you have removed them altogether, which is not acceptable. If you remove pertinent information from wikipedia, you must correct the information and not just leave it out. Also, you have provided no proof that these albums are not considered studio albums by the label. Glitter, for one, is credited as a whole to "Mariah Carey", making it not just simply an OST in the purest form, but a studio album as well. This is not opinion, this is fact, which is backed up by Billboard and other sources which list it as an official studio album of Mariah Carey. Please stop changing this. SteveJ2006 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Glitter and Merry Christmas

A user keeps removing them from the page completely because the user thinks they're "not studio albums". Which is fine, but removing them completely is not as a discography includes all releases by an artist. I will be happy for a new section to be added for other albums.

1) Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel is called her 12th studio album.
2) to make this right, Merry Christmas and Glitter would be studio albums.
3) Glitter and Merry Christmas from what I can find have always been considered studio albums, everywhere.

I don't know why this is. But removing two albums off a page completely (One of her biggest) makes the discography incomplete. My personal opinion is to have them as studio albums because Carey has 12 studio albums and Glitter and MC have always been considered that category. Jayy008 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-I did not have a chance to make a whole new category for "Other", so if it appeared that I was vandalizing I apologize, it was not my intention to remove it altogether, only from that section.

Going to a studio to record and album does not simply make an album a "studio proper". There are general guidelines (as pointed out by the admin) that all albums are categorized by, and even if Billboard or a Record Label deems it otherwise, it does not make it so. Merry Christmas is not an original studio album proper, although it may contain some "original" music.

Glitter can go either way. But it should not be considered a studio proper and an OST (Original Soundtrack). There are many OST's that are all original music but are never considered a studio proper. Glitter is the Official Soundtrack to the movie and on the Billboard charts it was placed in the Soundtrack Charts.

This is an encyclopedia, not a place where terms can be changed by the whims of a majority.--Sosa (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-I agree that Glitter and Merry Christmas should and always have been considered studio albums by Mariah Carey. Glitter the album is not credited simply as the "soundtrack" to the movie Glitter, it is credited as a whole to "Mariah Carey", her name is on the cover therefore it is an official Mariah Carey studio album, and is listed that way in all discographies of Carey, as well as by Billboard. Same with Merry Christmas. I don't know why this user seems intent on usurping all of that with his own personal opinion of what constitutes a "studio album", but the fact remains, wikipedia's own definition of studio album is this:

"A studio album is an original collection of new tracks by a recording artist."

By that definition, these two albums ARE indeed considered studio albums and should be listed as thus. SteveJ2006 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-According to RIAA, Glitter is not listed as a Studio album, it is OFFICIALLY a OST. This can be checked online at www.riaa.com, then searching the "searchable database". Again, this is not a matter of my opinion, it is a matter of fact. Having your name on an album cover does not make it a studio proper. RIAA categorizes Glitter as a Soundtrack album, and the fact that it was on the Billboard Soundtrack Charts is enough to deem this officially an OST--Sosa (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-Also, every artist in wikipedia that has an OST or Holiday album has them categorized in their own section, not in the Studio album section, this should also be the case for Mariah Carey--Sosa (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-If that's the case, I would be ok with them being listed in an "other albums" section, the main problem with your original reversion was that it removed information entirely without replacing it in a proper section. SteveJ2006 (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-Again, my intention was not to remove the albums entirely from the article, just to add them to the correct and proper place. --Sosa (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with this material, but upon review I do have a suggestion that may be helpful.

On the Discography page I suggest replacing the subsection title of "Studio albums" with "Original albums (chronological order)". Then just let the top line directly under the album names show each designation as a "Studio album", "Christmas album", or [soon to be replaced in one instance, I guess with] "Original soundtrack album".—Iknow23 (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We've had this argument before with Whitney Houston about what constitutes an album. As far as I'm concerned (and as far as AllMusic which is considered one of the most reliable websites around) there are only two types of album. Studio and compilation. Compilation albums include remix albums, greatests hits etc. Studio albums is self explainatory- this includes holiday albums because at the end of the day they are still albums recorded in the studio. An album of covers is still a studio album. Holiday just describes the type of music. Discographies should list the following (in this order): 1. EPs, 2. Studio albums, 4. Compilation albums, 5. Soundtracks & Live albums. And like the first discussion point has noted both of the albums need to be included for it to read correct since Memoirs is in definately Mimi's 12th album. Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes LilUnique, I remember the Whitney Houston discussion for One Wish, did it ever get resolved?
I agree with you completely though for it to read correct, they should be in studio albums as Memoirs is deffo 12th.
However, I would not object to IKnow123 suggestion because then they would still be in the same section.
I will wait to see what Kevin writes (If he does contribute) if not I will review what we've got here and see what the consensus will is.
Could everyone help make it easier please by putting the following on their next comment...

1) Leave it the way it is. Glitter and MC in the studio albums section.
2) IKnow123 suggestion (Leave it, but call it Original albums.
3) Kww and Samil20 suggestion of a section of "other" (Remember Memoirs is her 12th studio album, for this to be possible Glitter and MC are studio).
4) Other.

My personal option is #1 for the reasons in brackets on "3" and as they've always been considered studio by music sources. However, I will not object to IKnow123 suggestion.

Thank you everyone. Jayy008 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is #1. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

-My preference would be option #1 but I wouldn't object to option #2 as a compromise. SteveJ2006 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok so the consensus so far is 3 people for option #1. (Me, Lil Unique, Steve) One person for option #2. (Iknow123) and two people for option #3. (Kww and Samil20) The consensus is to keep it the way it is then. I will wait until Monday to see if anybody else contributes an opinion. If not then it would seem this discussion is over. Jayy008 (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I vote for #1. --Angel (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• I vote #1. These two albums have been part of Mariah's studio albums for years. IDJ and Columbia consider then studio albums, so that's how they should be listed.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If #1 is kept, I would suggest removing "Studio album" from the Album title cells as being redundant. It is stated so in the Section header. Even Merry Christmas doesn't need a 'Studio album' SUBheading of "Christmas album" as I think the title should already be sufficient indication of the type of material on the album.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's good enough for me #1 it is. IKnow123 I have no objection to your suggestion if you think it's neccessary someone can make the changes. Jayy008 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's fine. I'll wait a couple of days in case anyone wants to put forth any objection.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My objection is about Lil uniques comment. There are more designations that just Studio or Compilation. Allmusic is not the definitive source, RIAA does make a distinction; for example in the case of Glitter it does categorizes it as an Original Soundtrack, not a Studio album. I would think the RIAA to be more authoritative than allmusic or billboard. I would compromise with leaving Merry Christmas in the "studio" category, but Glitter is not. I would prefer to just have them all listed under Albums instead of Studio Albums -Samil20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.220.162 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm affraid the consensus has been made more people voted for keeping it. Anyone who is bothered looks on the discussion page. It's done now. Jayy008 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair thats not even a majority; 3 for #1 and 3 against it (1 for #2; 2 for #3), hardly a consensus.--204.38.30.197 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Studio Albums: Christmas Albums?—Iknow23 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's whatever the most people have voted for and that is enough for this. I never see anymore people than around 5 on artist discussion pages. If I thought there would be more making comments I would have waited but there wouldn't have been. Anyway, the matter is closed. Thanks IKnow23 I'll take a look! Jayy008 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Histmerge

• At about 17:44, 25 January 2010 I obeyed this histmerge request, for the articles and their talk pages: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Mariah Carey discography → Mariah Carey albums discography — The decision to split the page has consensus, as seen at Talk:Mariah Carey discography#Splitting the page. Mariah Carey singles discography has already been created. Unfortunately, there are some history problems, and the first effort at splitting attempted to use a cut-and-paste technique that resulted in more history problems. Please restore this version of Mariah Carey discography and do a history merge with Mariah Carey albums discography. Note that Mariah Carey albums discography was improperly merged into Mariah Carey discography on June 22, 2008, which is why the history merge is necessary. It's really just one article with a mangled history. —Kww(talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article

• Jayy008 has made an effort to split the discography into a singles page and an albums page. I've had to revert this for technical reasons related to the article history and the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licenses. It can be done, but it is fairly difficult, and will require an admin's assistance. The reason for this is that there has been a history of cut-and-paste moves between articles of various capitalizations and names. I think that getting the history straightened out for a split article will require about an hour of an admin's time. Before I request that it be done, I would like to be sure that there's a consensus that it should be done. Does everyone agree that the article should be split into an albums discography and a singles discography?—Kww(talk) 20:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. I believe her 20 year career to hold too much content for just one page.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: My reasoning is the same as Peter's and I believe I can do a lot of work on two separate pages. Jayy008 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. Without a shadow of a doubt for the reasons alreadys stated. Wonders why it wasn't brought up before? Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm fine with that as long as each has a 'look to' the other as was done with:

Singles (a section header)

Main article: Mariah Carey singles discography
—Iknow23 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I did that before anyway at the top of the page there will be a link to the main discography and the videography. Jayy008 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I know you did before. That's where I got the example from :)—Iknow23 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Makes perfect sense for artists with long discographies. works perfectly well for madonna and others. Mister sparky (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please combine same reference notations

Would someone kindly combine the reference notations of: http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-madonna-vs-whitney-vs-mariah-1004005695.story
There are at least 6 uses of this ref and they are all listed separately.
I am not asking for anyone to do what I have not done myself as I just finished combining the ref display name "Mariah Carey Has The Right Energy In E=MC2" and not long ago I combined ALL the "About Mariah Carey TicketSpecialists.com" references. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: there are 8 uses of the ref display name "Mariah's new remix Premiere at AOL's PopEater" that are all listed individually in the References section. Please combine. Thank You.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the PopEater ref's have been removed. But the 8 uses of http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-madonna-vs-whitney-vs-mariah-1004005695.story are still listed separately.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ticket specialists

IS this a bad website ^^^? All the sources for it like MC's worldwide sales (most of them) have been removed because they was using this website as a source. Jayy008 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, that's not a reliable source. But, I think we should discuss it on Wikipedia:Reliable source/Noticeboard. Bluesatellite (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent with the previous section to question this source. It was already used multiple times in the article and all I did was combine the ref citations into "a", "b", "c" etc usage. The ref had been accepted or at least not deleted as it was still there. That being said though, if it is a bad website it should definitely be challenged. I have no familiarity with that site.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Why isn't this page semi-protected. When this was part of the one page Mariah Carey discography it was semi, because of the constant vandalism and numerical sales inflations. I believe that both the single and album discography should be semi-protected, to be safe from future sales and certification deflation & inflations.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT protection of both.—Iknow23 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it got lost during the shuffle. You could try just asking at WP:RFPP.—Kww(talk) 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

been protected now anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I already requested both be protected again on WP:RFPP however, the admin only protected the albums page for 3 days. Perhaps somebody could re-add the request and make sure they place it permanently protected? Jayy008 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh somebody already has. That should help out alot. Jayy008 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of improper reference http://forums.madonnanation.com/index.php?showtopic=9211

Forums are not verifiable. See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Forums and blogs are not and will never be reliable sources on Wikipedia. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree, the only reason I included it into the article is because of a certain fussy editor. Now that we are confronting it, I agree with you both.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

So you'll be removing it then?—Iknow23 (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure did. If you didn't think it was appropriate you should have just notified me on my talk page. It happens to be I don't agree with it either, just another editor thought it was reliable enough.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine :) If you also removed the material that it was being used for as ref from the article, go ahead and delete the 'self-published' template. When I reverted it earlier I left in the Edit summary, "forums are not verifiable. See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources" as indication of what I was doing.—Iknow23 (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of reference http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877

Where is it verified that BMG music clubs sales are not reported (INCLUDED) in Billboard and/or RIAA listings? That is, how do you know that you can ADD it to those?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You can look for it. Here's the first article google showed me [7]. Music Club Sales isn't included in SoundScan figures. Max24 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That article doesn't EXACTLY say that. Note there is a difference between say:

'SoundScan doesn't include sales made to record labels' music-club members'

vs. what it actually says:

"SoundScan doesn't include sales made to record labels' music-club members as part of their promotional offers of, say, 10 albums for a penny. "It's not a true consumer decision to purchase each one of those items," Mr. Muratore says.

Since he makes that distinction, it seems to me that he means that the OTHER sales from 'record labels' music-club members' is included. Or is that just me?

And I support SoundScan's decision to not include the ones mentioned. Those are more appropriately being used as 'promotional' items and not true sales.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That source certainly doesn't support Max24's position.—Kww(talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Max24 has it backwards. We are not required to go look for it. Per WP:V#Burden of evidence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article."—Iknow23 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Why the difference? Nielsen SoundScan does not count albums sold through clubs like the BMG Music Service. (Whereas the RIAA does count those albums shipped to clubs.) Music clubs aren't incredibly popular anymore, but they certainly were in the '90s. When Spears' debut came out in 1999, you can bet that it likely sold quite well through music clubs." (from [8]) Bluesatellite (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. That says it plainly. There is of course another reason also for the 'difference' they are referring to. The difference between TOTAL albums shipped and TOTAL albums sold.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is still a problem in that it fails, "The source should be cited clearly and precisely..." Since it is not being cited individually but as a component of a combined total, there should be some kind of note to indicate that.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that the two sources provide two different descriptions of what SoundScan doesn't count. Muratore and Caulfield are both reliable sources, working for Nielsen and Billboard respectively. If Muratore is right, the error introduced is trivial. If Caulfield is right, it was significant in the past. I don't know how to tie-break.—Kww(talk) 04:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From what the article reads and from what I have read here, I would have to agree with Ikonw23 that SoundScan does seem to add the BMG club sales into their total tally. If they weren't, the article wouldn't have made a clear differentiation between what Max claims and regarding Promotional offers. I say that until a clear source and decision is made, all BMG mentions that are added to total sales listed by Billboard should be Removed. In addition I don't believe this source to be entirely reliable, especially for such a controversial point. Who agrees?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AGREE. Until verifiable as appropriate, the BMG additions should be Removed.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Great!. Do you agree Kww?--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have solid enough sourcing to support adding the BMG sales.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BMG music clubs aren't included in the sales, if you look at Daydream I have a section for (sold) and a section for (BMG music club) because they shouldn't be included in sales persay, they're separate so they should be written as such. But the RIAA do count it in their shipements so it should still be noted that it sold however many at the clubs and how many it sold in retail. Jayy008 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Billboard link to support my claims Jayy008 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the same source as provided above. The problem is that the sources are contradictory. Muratore and Caulfield are both reliable sources, working for Nielsen and Billboard respectively. If Muratore is right, the error introduced is trivial. If Caulfield is right, it was significant in the past. Since Muratore works directly for Nielsen, I'm inclined to weight his statements quite heavily.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's weird, because one says Billboard uses the total numbers, but Billboard themselves state that they don't. Also I find it weird them for "Music Box" is the sales are already combined (which I doubt) there's 3 million copies of Music Box sitting on shelves in America unsold, are labels stupid enough to ship 3M+ albums?!?!? Jayy008 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have thought that too Jayy, I don't think it makes sense at all that her album would only sell 7.5M copies. Hoever in reality we need to have info that's reliable not just what makes sense.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, RIAA just lists GROSS numbers shipped. I'm sure the record stores 'return' most of the unsold ones. They may keep a few in stock but not 2 million loitering around, right? 'NET SHIPMENTS', which RIAA may NOT use? would be Number Shipped less Returns. Another reason why RIAA may not use NET SHIPMENTS, is delay in reporting. How long would they wait to see how many would be Returned?—Iknow23 (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the RIAA uses gross shipments. Reshipped returns aren't counted twice, though: that's what the cut-out process is for. —Kww(talk) 00:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If true, then Record Companies can 'force' a certification by shipping out as many as they want? 'gross shipments'—Iknow23 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If they can get retailers to accept shipment of a million copies, they can apply for certification right then, even with no sales. There's always been a certain amount of overshipping. People like to buy popular albums, so there's a pressure to get the certification by shipping and hope the sales come later when the certification makes people think it has sold more than it has.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ha ha. Sort of like a self-fullfilled prophesy. Some overshipping would be understandable...don't want potential sales to walk out the door. So Certs don't really mean as much as 'most' people believe? Sales are a truer reflection of an album's success—Iknow23 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you say it's alright to me removing the BMG info in general Kww? Being that we seem to have some sort of a consensus.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SoundScan doesn't include Music Club Sales. However RIAA does. The differances between SoundScan sales and RIAA certifications are not only because of overshipment but also because of Music Club Sales. For example The Colour of My Love was released in 1993 and sold the most copies in 1994. But the 6x platinum certification came in 1999. So how can it be overshipped 5 years after the release? It would make sense if it happenned in 1994. Max24 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But 1999 wasn't its first cert, right? Original Certs can be 'upgraded' as time goes by and more are shipped, right?—Iknow23 (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it did sell near 10million, there are other clubs, although I'm not American so I don't know what they are, was BMG the most popular or something? Basically, I think the source should be used as long as sales aren't merged, what's every1 think? Jayy008 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but think the sales Cannot be merged,I think it should be listed seperately like you have done in Mariah Carey pages. From what I understand BMG seems to be the largest one, but I'm sure there were many others.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont.

Well, I'd have to say that I share Kww's concern over conflicting sources. How can you state that something is 'reliable' when two great sources conflict on the matter? It should NOT be added until it can be shown to be 'verifiable' that BMG is not included in sales reporting. IF this can be done, then add as Petergriffin9901 & I have said to list them separately and not 'merge', combine or add them together. —Iknow23 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, if we are able to find this answer, then the very best we can do is list them separately. Under no circumstance should the figures ever be merged together, as has been done before.--PeterGriffin Talk • Cont.

I don't see that this has been 'answered' or resolved, so why has BMG sales been added to the article?? REVERT awaiting resolution here.—Iknow23 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I added them to the article before this discussion. Anyway, I'm confused with what Kww said, the source which tells you about MJ doesn't say anything about BMG club, which is the point of this discussion, not the RIAA shipments or whatever else this discussion has brought up. The issue was with the source (since Billboard said BMG and Nielson have separate sales) and if it's not reliable then it can't be used, if it is it can't. That's the only issue I can see, can the source be used? Jayy008 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Certifications

I thought Denmark was DK? Why is DK listed for Germany? Jayy008 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

petergriffin changed it to DK. puzzles me too. germany is DE. Mister sparky (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your right, my mistake, it is DE. It is confusing that way I admit, which explains my error, however it is the correct way of listing it.--PeterGriffin • Talk 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

We should limit the number of certifications to the five same countries, otherwise it looks biased and confusing... I think the most important are US, EU, AUS, JP and CA or UK! Reidlos (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it looks quite informative and neat the way it is, however if a consensus shows favoritism towards having only 5 or 6 then my list would be (No specific order) United States, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and France. The main reason I would not include Europe is because the certification was not around during the first big decent stretch of her career. "Music Box" her strongest seller in Europe by far, would be certified around 8 or 9 times Platinum EU if the award was around. So I disagree, but if the decision id made and we have to vote for which countries, those are my top 6 choices.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a limit, I think certifications should be listed for all the countries that are shown in the charts column. Jayy008 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Jamie.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we delete certifications from South Korea and Brasil then? Reidlos (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Individual chart positions for Brazil can't be provided, so the certifications (which are readily available and reliably sourced) are the only viable indicator of market success for albums there. I don't think removing them on the basis of the charts not being listed is justifiable.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not add Brasilian certifications for the other albums either? Reidlos (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to add Brazil to all her albums I'm all for it, I just haven't got around to it, as I first got the most significant ones out of the way.--PeterGriffin • Talk 05:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So? How many certs can we add to the article? Ten, twenty,...? Reidlos (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say the major certifications on each album, not 40 for Gold and Platinum. Only the large certs. After that, let it be 15 for all I care.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide Sales

Studio Albums: Mariah Carey:20 million Emotions:12 million Music Box: 32 million Merry Christmas: 16 million Daydream: 25 million Butterfly: 15.5 million Rainbow: 13 million Glitter: 4 million Charmbracelet: 5 million The Emancipation of Mimi: 10 million E=MC2: 2.5 million Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel: 2 million

Compilations & Live: MTV Unplugged: 14 million #1's: 20 million Greatest Hits: 5 million

Combined Album Sales: 196 million albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psawyer1 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy if you support your claim with reliable sources. In September 2009, Mariah's official label (Island Records and Universal Music Group) officially announced that Mariah sold 175 million records (albums, singles, videos) worldwide Bluesatellite (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

On US sales please base it on certification

I have changed the US sales based on certification not ACTUAL SALES Because you cannot really count or monitor the sales everyday. EXAMPLE as of April 18, 2009(this is just an example) Daydream sold 7,952,623 units as of April 18, 2010 so today is June 11, 2010 so the sales of Daydream went up by some units so it is preferable to state the sales in the US based on certification not actual sales because evryday there are many persons buying that certain album and you cannot monitor them everyday....

Also I have made the fonts into its normal font not smaller because it needs emphasis.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by REGICUAZA (talk • contribs) 06:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction on Japan's figures

I made some corrections on Japan's figures and I'd like to point out the corrections I made so there won't be any misunderstanding by anybody. This here is the source that was being used to support the Japanese figures before, it comes directly from RIAJ; however, the page itself doesn't include the database which one would need to verify the figures with, this is the google translated version. The database for Million Seller records for RIAJ is this, and this should not be confused with the Gold/Platinum certification database which is this. in other words, Million Seller figures cannot be placed along with other RIAA or BPI certifications, Million Seller figures should be placed along with sales figures, and I have corrected that. Finally, I noticed here before I edited, some 3 Million sellers and 2 million sellers, all of which were inflated by someone before. "Million Seller" database doesn't have any records listed for 2 million or 3 million, neither for Japanese artists nor international, they are all 1 Million Sellers. The certification database is the database that lists anything that sells over 1 Million units and I checked every month's Certification listing, and multiple million-sellers all belong to Japanese artists. Also, Carey has only Million Sellers on four of her albums, Merry Christmas, Day Dream, Butterfly and The Ones. She doesn't have anything on albums Mariah Carey, Emotions or Music Box as it was wrongly listed before. Anyways, all my corrections can be verified through these two databases, 1) "Million Seller database", 2)Gold/Platinum certification database.--Harout72 (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point something out. I get the impression this "Million" seller list you have is only after 1994, which would explain why those albums are not listed (they are from 90, 91 and 93). As for the 2 or 3 million, hmmmm, I really do believe there to be multiple million awards, Im puzzled.--PeterGriffin • Talk 06:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it starts from 1989, see if for yourself here, use the drop down, also you don't have to rely on my word, you could go over it just as I did, use the google-translator, really, it is not difficult. I'm just trying to help this page to have the truth, not inflations. And it seems that some of the Japanese figures on some of Carey's albums were inflated while others were listed as Million Sellers but do not exist as Million Sellers according to RIAJ's information.--Harout72 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then why is this listed this way. You said that there is no such thing as a multiple million award, yet here on the official certifying website, it list up to 5x Million, see for yourself. So what does this mean?--PeterGriffin • Talk 16:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, the database for Million Seller doesn't contain anything over 1 million units, everything they have listed is only for one million. What you pointed out above is the RIAJ's criteria. And in their certification-database which is this stretches back only to July 2003. But again, multiple-million-selling records belong to Japanese artists, none belongs to international artists. Please go over all of them yourself if you don't believe me, and you should, because you seem to doubt me. So here is the database for Million Sellers and here is the Google translator, paste the URL of each year into the address like in this example and you will see it for yourself. And you can do the same with their certification database.--Harout72 (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

INFLATED sales by Petergriffin9901

Hello everybody. Now, Petergriffin9901 has new way to inflate the album sales of Mariah Carey, by putting non-online reference (book), so he thinks nobody can verify his claimed sales. However, I come here to verify that most of sales which he added are NOT in the given book source. Just For example, Petergriffin9901 wrote that #1's sold 20 million with reference of "Mariah Carey: The Unauthorized Biography" (page 88). I read that book on http://books.google.com and there's nothing the author said that figure, neither on the page 88 nor on the other pages. Another prove? Petergriffin9901 wrote that MTV Unplugged sold 10 million with reference of the same book (now page 34). Unfortunately, I check the book and there's NO line that said MTV Unplugged sold that much, neither on his given page nor on the other pages. These are only few examples of his inflated claims. I have removed all albums sales with book references on this page, UNTIL other independent users can review the claimed sales. Baratayuda (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, this is a serious accusation Peter. I won't comment until I see your response. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never checked this on Google books or I would have sourced it from the web. I have a hard copy from the library and this is what I read. Maybe this is a different version, but I'm really not sure why it doesn't come up on this website. If you want you can remove them, as it doesn't come up, but I stand by what I said regarding the book.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the Music Box sales for Singapore, stating that 1.6 million albums were sold there, I though that it was nearly imposible considering the country's entire poulation is like 4 million people. In this case I don't think that he inflated the sales, he just missunderstood the Billboard article that said that Sony Music's headquarters are in Singapore. I can't say anything about the other sources though, I haven't checked. Frcm1988 (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats because my intent here isn't to try and make these articles crap. I went to the library, got a few old books on Mariah Carey and posted the sales I read. If the same information does not show up on Google books, I really don't know what to say, I know what the book in the library said. I understand if you don't want to leave it, as it is a questionable problem as to why they are different, but I stand by what I said before. Thats what it says in the hard copy.--PeterGriffin • Talk 08:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As requested, here's my opinion. I don't think PeterGriffin would intentionally vandalise anymore. He has tried hard to make articles the best they can be. For example he recently single handidly overhauled Mariah Carey (album) and it's not a Wikipedia: Good Article. And F.Y.I. we're not stupid putting "inflated" in capitals isn't really necessary. Jayy008 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I think you should go back to the library and check the book out again. That way we can compare publishing dates/etc.—Kww(talk) 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I'll provide my comment. While I haven't gone through all the sources yet, I will make this statement; why would anyone place a source if they're not completely sure it reflects the statement? I mean, that's a bit hard to take in. Also, I checked to see if indeed there were other versions of the book, which Peter thought there might be. There weren't. The "biography" was published in May 2001, and there were no other revised editions printed. Now, I cannot say as to whether Peter intentionally inflated the sales, because no one will be able to know that, except for Peter. However, I will say that this "mixing up" of information from sources cannot be repeated. This is especially true from inline citations, which can be quite difficult to verify. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, there's a conclusive way to prove your innocence. Take a couple of pics (even a cheap, low-res camera phone would suffice) of the pages of the book you cited, and share them on the Internet.—Your friendly neighbourhood driveby IP, 114.143.169.4 (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed Peters past edits and it seems they are all honest. Just an example, he used the book source to reference the sales of Carey's debut album on this discography page, he listed sales of 17 million. Now judging from this source Daydream shares here, BET announced sales of over 15 million from her debut, making Peter's claim pretty close. Besides for a few small quarrels with some other editors he hasn't been warned for explicit vandalism since the beginning of his probation back in June 2009. I agree with BalticPat22, in that I can't imagine a pretty experienced editor placing explicitly wrong information. To top it all off he even provided page numbers; So I can't imagine him framing himself to be caught so easily on purpose.--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am an editor that has clashed in the past with Peter ..I believe he has done the edits to the page are all in good faith. He has greatly and swiftly changed his editing tone to articles and has sought out reliable sources. From past encounters with hustle editors (my self included) Peter is well aware that people are closely watching this pages on her ...and I do not believe any misleading intent was done on purpose if at all. At most is a fan who has enthusiastically interpreted numbers.Moxy (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. What I'm trying to understand Baratayuda is why you did things in this fashion, as Jayy008 indicates. If you found something wrong or fishy, you should have gone to Peter himself and brought it to his attention, not written "INFLATED HOAX" across half of Wikipedia and to over 11 editors. That just shows bad faith and almost as if your trying to get editors here banned. On Wikipedia, we try to go by assuming good faith whenever possible, something you unfortunately failed to do here.--AlastorMoody (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

With all this said perhaps is best we use "Visible" references. Meaning references that link to book/web pages..there must be some that cover this.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL..Moxy (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand Moxy, are you insinuating that we do not use non-online sourcing for sales? If that is what your saying I would think towards agreeing. I never liked the idea of not being able to readily verify something, especially sales, which is something that can easily be changed. Anyways, I have placed a few sales information on the page now, and think its fine the way it is. I think we should try and use online sourcing in sales discographies, to avoid future problems.--AlastorMoody (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

yes that is what i am saying...just in this case because what is found online does not seem to match...so lets go with what is most likely to be seen by the public at larger regardless if they search on Wikipedia.Moxy (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with that. Sales should be sourced to the most reliable source available, not the most easily accessible.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but how reliable is a source that cant be found our verified - if all that can be found say A y would we use B if only one source say B. Moxy (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Kww, while I hear where your coming from, I can't agree, we have just seen firsthand what a misread or misinterpreted source can do, so how can we call them "more reliable" if they are "unverifiable"? I have to agree with Moxy, I just don't see it being the normal way of things.--AlastorMoody (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:V specifically addresses the use of written sources. I won't say that an unauthorized biography of Mariah Carey is necessarily a great source, but for older records we frequently wind up using old paper references because the only online reference is a fan-site or a press release. There's nothing that makes a paper reference unreliable, you just have to drive to the library to do it.—Kww(talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume Talk had good intentions by citing that biography, but these sale figures seem to be quite inflated. I think we should completely abandon fishy subjects like worldwide sales from this article. Reidlos (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see us all come to a consensus that worldwide sales shouldn't be discussed in any article over any artist. The sourcing is never good and always contradicts another source. Nobody tracks them, so we shouldn't report them.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong to use non-online source as long as it is used properly and honestly. Everyone may click Google Books or buy/borrow the book if they want to verify. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Google Books isn't always available for specific books. Unless it's completely imperative to use inline citations (meaning weblinks aren't available) I would advise against it. I'm not saying inline citations cannot be used at all, I'm just saying if the source is extremely hard to verify, I wouldn't use it. That way, those who want to vandalize the statement would be less inclined to do so.BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that. Books are almost everytime more reliable than websites beacause they have a facts chcking proccess and an editorial review, at least for the big and well know publishers, plus there are much more info for topics pre-2000 in books. In this case the source is not extremely hard to verify. The book is available on Google books, at least for me, and I can see some pages in Amazon too, and well the pages cited and the information in the article don't match at all. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am ordering this book, now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Answering to an editors suggestion. I don't know if its possible, but if explained, I would be happy to take photos of the book and pages and post them.--PeterGriffin • Talk 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not. It's common sense, this page has been prone to vandalism but he hasn't posted anything here about those. But you're right, end of discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

INFLATED sales by Petergriffin9901 AGAIN

Few days ago, Petergriffin9901 changed the Spanish certifications for Mariah Carey, and added the book source: Sólo éxitos 1959-2002, Año a año by Fernando Salaverri. I have seen the book some time ago and I can assure you that he has intentionally inflated Carey's sales. The book says that Music Box is 4x Platinum (he changed it to 5x Platinum), Merry Christmas wasn't certified at all (he made it Platinum), Daydream was certified 2x Platinum (he made it 3x Platinum), Butterfly was certified Platinum (he changed it to 2x Platinum), #1's was certified Platinum (he changed it to 2x Platinum), and finally The Emancipation of Mimi wasn't certified at all (he made it Platinum). I can provide two links. Here www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27310&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=spanish&start=25 is the link to a forum and a post from September 20, 2005. You can find there all Mariah Carey peaks and certifications from the book. Second link is here for the last week of The Emancipation of Mimi on the chart. It is not certified at all, not even gold.

I have asked him today if he still has the book and he said he does not. But he must've got scared because even not having the book he changed back certifications for two albums: Music Box and Daydream.

How long can we tolerate this behaviour? -- Max24 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I am surprised by this, probably a topic ban, so he can add or change sales should be applied, and I think this is not the same time this happened. Frcm1988 (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Max24 is impartial to the situation with a person vendetta against PeterGriffin. Since he's not a fan of Mariah Carey, remembering "exactly what her certifications were" after "reading it some time ago", how unlikely is that? Remember something you dislike... or even like... perfectly... after a long period of time is probably a lie. I think, another use should assess these certifications etc, and Max24 does the same thing to Celine Dion articles. Jayy008 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PS, I don't know why I have to say it again but we're not stupid. Putting capitals will not draw attention to the matter, it's more attention seeking. Please assume good faith. Jayy008 (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "I have seen the book some time ago" and a forum post isn't enough for me to act on. Does anyone have access to this book?—Kww(talk) 13:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all Max, Im not going to again try and show your mistakes (vandalism) I don't really care, Ill just prove my point. Firstly, Max is acting on this MariahDaily page, not the book. Secondly I did not add Spain to "The Emancipation of Mimi." Thirdly, I am trying to get all her pages to GA level, so I have actually removed many certifications that didn't belong, see "Mariah Carey (album)" where I removed Japan and a few others. I happen to be confident in my edits, so no I am not scared when you ask me a question, it just happened to remind me of them and I double checked them.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly find this kind of wikiship to be disgusting, firstly you obviously have no idea what good faith is. Secondly, if you have a problem or concern, I have never given you reason to not approach me and question it. Anyone can stalk an editor and take their edit out of context and exploit it whenever they please. Trying to take edits out of context and display them, and then invite editors and try to convince them to have something done is shameful. Not only that, but when I do good, its because "he must have gotten scared and changed it." Its really annoying.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How can we assume good faith, you clearly never seen the book, yet you added the certifications with the book as a reference(none with a page number), and in every single one of them you changed it to a higher level. Music Box[9]Merry Christmas[10]Butterfly[11]Daydream[12]Number 1s[13][14] And I assume that the author is a big Carey's fan, considering that he added a certification to a 2005 album even though the book's name is Sólo éxitos: año a año, 1959–2002. The Emancipation of Mimi[15] So what is the context of these edits? Frcm1988 (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit certainly begs for an explanation.—Kww(talk) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether an edit is vandalism or not. You always assume good faith. Jayy008 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually have a very reasonable explanation for that. I didn't place Spain in the article at all. Look here to Max24's edit of the page here and here is a few edits later before I touched the article here. So as you see I didn't place Spain in the article at all.--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So why did you change the source to the book?—Kww(talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On May 10, 2010, Petergriffin9901 did the same with New Zealand - he added a book source and changed the certifications levels to higher ones. He changed the Music Box certification from 5x Platinum to 10x Platinum [16], Merry Christmas from 2x Platinum to 5x Platinum [17], Daydream from 5x Platinum to 9x Platinum [18], Butterfly from 1x Platinum to 5x Platinum [19], Rainbow from 1x Platinum to 3x Platinum [20], and The Emancipation of Mimi from 1x Platinum to 2x Platinum [21]. Today, Petergriffin9901 has reverted his own changes regarding New Zealand after this discussion about him. -- Max24 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly can't say I remember 100% why, but I can tell you most probably what happened. I recently began formatting all the references in the chart certifications and chart positions, you can check that. So what I do allot of times is copy the references for a certain country from an article I have already referenced and paste it to the new ones, so I won't have to do them again (its an annoying process to reformat the same things over and over). So what I think happened is I didn't really pay attention to what was referencing other articles with the Spain certifications and just took for granted it was Promusicae or something of the sort, because I did see if was already properly formatted. Thats what makes the most sense to my knowledge. I would not place a 2002 book on a 2005 album page on purpose, I mean we have to place the year it was published in the references when we format them, and as you see when I placed it, it was formatted, so I would have seen the year. And the fact its wasn't mentioned. Hope that clears it up for you.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your wrong Max, as told you these articles have to be honest to pass as GA, it has nothing to do with you. You don't even have the book, so why would feel threatened if I were truly guilty? Its because it has absolutely nothing to do with you or anyone. I can't give you exact reasons for something 4 months ago, but it probably goes along the lines of copy and pasting and not being careful. You make mistakes as well Max, don't think they go unnoticed. On The Colour of My Love you placed Platinum for Mexico, however look here on Mexico's official certifying agency and you'll see the album was never certified. Same thing Max, could it be a mistake? No way! forsure your intentions are to vandalize. Additionally Max has placed Portugal and Greek certifications on many Dion articles, all of them unsourced. if you want specific places will gladly show you.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not just copy pasting them, you are also changing every single certification level, if it said gold you put platinum, if it said platinum you put 2xplatinum. Your explanation is pretty dubious, the book was published in 2005 I think that is why you automatically placed it in the article without even realising that the book only covers from 1959-2002. This proved that you never saw the book, so I don't know how can you put the book as a source and make up the certifications, and those are not mistakes, you clearly are inflating her sales. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine if you believe that, I happen to stand by it being a mistake. If Kww would like, I really have no problem having him approve books that I would use for sales or certifications in the future, I trust him. I mean I understand that even if it is a mistake I am responsible for my edits, so I wouldn't have a problem having Kevin approve sales of certifications books in the future. Honestly if thats what it takes for you people to get on with your Wiki lives and quit taking specific month old edits out of context and making big large scale discussions over simple editor to editor conversations.--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, the matter has been very CLEAR. Petergriffin9901 uses non-online Book source to cite his hoax claim. @Jay008, Can you be objective? Although I and Max is not a Mariah fan, we should report the TRUTH. How can we assume good faith when we find a serious vandalism! Baratayuda (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to assume good faith no matter what, I usually stay out of thing but putting things in caps just winds me up. It doesn't get your point across any clearer. I can't speak for Peter, but he's working on making all Mariah articles WK:GOOD ARTICLES and if they have "fake sources" etc, it wouldn't get passed? I can be objective, I always am. Max is very impartial and has personal issues with the user PeterGriffin and wouldn't put anything it if it wasn't for about Peter. Max24 inflates Celine Dion articles all the time but because there is less people using her articles, it goes unoticed. I'm done with this discussion now, as KWW said having seen a book some time ago isn't enough to act on. Jayy008 (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not correct, we are not required to continue to assume good faith if there is contrary evidence. Adding incorrect information and sources that don't support the statements don't help the project at all. Frcm1988 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it matters not what you believe, your arguing over a few inconsistent certifications and your making week-long large scale discussions, seriously get a life and move on. We aren't talking about a large scale sockpuppet/vandal/ case, were talking about a few good-faith screw ups, whether you believe they are good-faith or not is not my problem. Now I am discussing it with 2 admins (as it should have been, you all weren't invited; except you Jamie, thanks :D) and am straightening it out.--PeterGriffin • Talk 15:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jayy008, don't speculate on other users' edits; it's completely off-topic, it doesn't help the disussion at hand, and it makes you look extremely one-sided. Also, according to WP:AGF users don't have to assume good faith "in the presence of contrary evidence." That said, what I've seen are certain instances where sources have been changed for whatever reason. I mean, why source a book one's never read before?? It doesn't make sense. Now, I do have to say that Peter's been better with editing articles, overall. He recently edited Celine Dion's albums, These Are Special Times, Let's Talk About Love, among others, by reverting unverified information from IFPI-affiliated sources. Now, I tried to find sources for those, but alas I could not. One instance is Italy's FIMI chart. They don't update their certifications regularly, and some of the info is restricted to registered users (which I found out afterwards), and that is probably why Peter deleted the info from the articles. While these actions are good examples of proper editing, they obviously don't explain the edits in Mariah Carey's articles. There needs to be something in place to curb whatever's happening here with book sources, because it obviously isn't working.BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't off topic, Max24's only reason for this is his personal vendetta against PeterGriffin. That's the only reason I'm one-sided because he's done it to me in the past as well, so I'm judging Max by that. Jayy008 (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And you know this for a fact? Anyway, it's beside the point. If you want to question Max24's personal feelings, do it in another topic. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution

I would like to propose editing restrictions on both Max24 and Petergriffin9901 until we can get some of these issues settled. There are numerous accusations against both editors that they are selecting sources based on standards other than reliability. There isn't enough evidence for me to conclusively say that's true, but there's enough concern by enough editors to make be believe that some action is warranted. I've approached Harout72, who I think everyone would agree is a reliable and unbiased editor, and he has agreed to help. The editing restriction I am proposing is this:

• Neither Max24 nor Petergriffin9901 will change a sales figure, source, or certification on any article without approval of the change by Harout72. Max24 and Petergriffin9901 are each also restricted from reverting any change made by the other editor without approval by Harout72 or Kww. Violation of these restrictions will be met with blocks. This editing restriction will expire 90 days from acceptance.

I would like to hear discussion on this proposal, and, if the community agrees it's a good idea, I would strongly encourage both editors to voluntarily agree to comply. The next step would be a formal RFC/U, and those are painfully unpleasant.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Kevin (Kww) I'd be glad to assist everyone with as much help as possible, if everyone agrees. From all that I see, the main issue that everyone seems to have is the offline book that is being used to support certification-awards which creates doubts as to whether or not those certifications do really exist; therefore, I suggest we remove that reference altogether and rely solely on certifications that are available to us online through music industry associations. I realize that some of the earlier certifications issued by PROMUSICAE as well as ARIA cannot be posted as those associations do not offer certifications issued for earlier periods. In my opinion, it's not necessary to have all certifications to prove Carey's enormous success which she's achieved throughout the years. After all, the most important music markets in the world including RIAA, BPI, Bundesverband Musikindustrie and SNEP, all have their certifications available to us ever since they have begun certifying records. Also, RIAJ offers its 1 Million-Seller-database which contains all records that have surpassed 1 Million mark since 1989.--Harout72 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is no real way to verify web-based book references, unless they are posted on sites like Google Books. As for those who say "go to a library", I say that it defeats the purpose of an online encyclopedia, and that not all libraries are stocked with books as vague as these. I'd be hard pressed to find an unauthorized biography of Mariah Carey in my local library. I agree that certification referenced sources should be backed up by direct links to local recording industry associations like the RIAA, CRIA, SNEP, BPI, etc. That way, there won't be any confusion toward a source's reliability. As for the proposed restriction on Peter and Max, I am leaning against it. Both users help to weed out blatant vandalism from the respective articles they monitor, and is a great asset that I value. That said, I don't think debates and allegations like the one we've been having is constructive or helpful in any way. As for Peter, we only have a few specific instances of Peter changing book sources, some of which I find mildly eyebrow-raising. As for Max, I'm not really sure why he's being included, other than the fact that he brought the topic up. There weren't any specific examples of him allegedly editing book sources, or doing something similar. Anyway, if both parties agree to be more cordial to eachother, and to stick to that commitment, then I think a proposal like this can be avoided. However, if this finger pointing and source-changing behavior continues, despite pleas to stop, action may be needed. That's what I think, at least. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually have some comments. Firstly I think your not acting in a fair or partial manner. Secondly I feel you started issuing these "threats" of blocking and banning to anyone who makes a mistake. Honestly Kevin, I totally disagree to being placed on restriction again. I have been editing in relative peace for the last 11 months and have worked well on countless articles and with many editors. Now I already explained to you, that being the circumstances, I understand must stand by my mistakes, so I insisted that it be dealt with in the most fair fashion. Now my only issue has been regarding book sources, so I offered to be under that restriction for a period of time, and ask your approval for the use of book sources for sales and certifications. That should be the farthest spectrum of the restriction; how am I to be punished for things I did not do? We are to stand by our mistakes and take the heat for it, but only for what we did, not for extra. Also, you "considering" topic bans? That's absurd, for me or for Max. Your telling me because your sick and tired of hearing Max's complaining of me, your going to ban the most active Carey and Dion editors? Without us their pages would be vandalism ravaged stubs. Your not being fair, and I think your taking this "judgement" thing a bit too far. As Eric Orbit said, topic ban are the last resort. There is no such situation! As I said, I would take up the "book source restriction, when it comes to sales and certifications," after that, I feel any farther push is unjust, exaggerated and unfair. And Kevin, there is nothing wrong with me expressing agreement or disapproval, were having a normal discussion.--PeterGriffin • Talk 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is well short of a topic ban, and is only up for discussion at this point. If people feel that lesser or no restrictions are needed, they should say so. I can't (and wouldn't) impose this unilaterally.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well then I guess I misunderstood. However, I'm a little uncomfortable with other editors choosing my fate. Honestly it has nothing to do with anyone, I would prefer to take it up with you or Eric together. I mean I only find it fitting that you decide, considering we have a long history. You see I just don't find this whole predicament to have needed everyones opinion; it should have been a discussion between myself and Max, and then you or Eric, not half of Wikipedia, and whoever visits this page. You see what I mean?--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Standard procedure would be at WP:RFC/U, and that's uglier and broadcast throughout all of Wikipedia. Neither you nor Max is acting in a way that any admin could act unilaterally against you and have it hold up. I was actually trying to do this a bit more discreetly than standard channels, not more publicly.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well if thats the case, then thank you and well see what happens.--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@BalticPat22, it's not here, it's on the Celine Dion articles that Max24 inflates. So please research before saying you don't know why he's here. Kevin and EO, I think are the most impartial users for this matter and things should go through them. Not the user you suggested above Kevin. Since book sources are the only issue (relating to PeterGriffin) then I think the only ban that should be issued is he shouldn't be allowed to add them unless they can be verified online. Anything else is over the top. Jayy008 (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But like I said, there were no allegations of that, which explains my mild confusion. Thanks for the clarification, though. I do agree that the only reason to add book sources is for them to be easily accessible/verifiable. BalticPat22Patrick (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Petergriffin9901 and Jayy008 are the only editors who disagreed with me in the past and they are doing it now. I don't see other voices against me. If you still think the solution is editing restriction for me, I don't mind. Max24 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because unfortunately for us, we have been the only ones who have had to deal with you (me extensively) in the past. Other than us, noone really looks at your pages, so all your "edits" go unnoticed, well not by us. And lastly, the reason your not noticing it is because you don't "see" voices, you hear them, and you haven't heard my voice in the past.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's apparent that there is not a consensus that admin intervention of any kind is needed, so I'm considering this to be closed for now.—Kww(talk) 03:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Huge apologies, I am very late to this discussion, although I am glad it worked out as it did. The result is what I would have suggested anyway, I agree with Kww's original proposal and avoidance of a messy RFC/U in this case is preferred. Again, sorry I replied here so late. Pls contact me if needed! - eo (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Recieving only Platinum status in the United States"

Not true. If Glitter has received Platinum status in the US, that means over 1,000,000 copies have been sold. Memoirs has only sold just over 500,000 copies (Gold), therefore, Glitter is not her lowest selling album to date. I would changed it on the article, butanything and everything i change with valid cause or reason always gets undone, so I am saying it here first. calvin999 21:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

Uhmmm the quote you are providing says "becoming her second lowest selling album to date", so I don't understand the problem here. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It didn't say that when i posted it. Plus i noticed the section i was talking about has been changed since i posted this. calvin999 20:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)

Being certified platinum doesnot have any link with the actual sales. That means that the record company shipped 1,000,000 copies of the album. It is true that Memoirs is the lowest selling studio album though. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel sales

Hi everyone, I'm having a disagreement with another editor, so please help out with your opinions. I placed this source, a current press release from Carey's label, look here, which writes specifically, "the multi-million selling Memoirs". So I believe, since it says Multi-million, which means at least 2 million, its safe to write it sold 2. Blue Satellite doesn't think so, please express if you think saying "multi-million selling" is support for writing two million. This applies to the album article as well. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think multi-million is multi-million, by which I mean, you shouldn't/can't/oughtn't go making up a number to go with it. I understand your logic, Nathan, and I've used the same reasoning before, but for WP purposes I'd stick with what the source says: "multi-million".

This all begs the question of how reliable this source is anyway. I realize (after some inspection) that the page is from the record label, but it still reads like a breathless post by an excited fan gushing on Web forum of a fan site somewhere. It's got an abrasive, pushy tone that seems unprofessional and, if not unreliable, at least questionable as a source for sales numbers (esp. when it doesn't use actual numbers). Do you have no better sources for sales figures? Someone a little less primary, IYKWIM? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Multi indicates at least 2 million, at least. To be multi-million means a lot more than two. If you think of millionaires and multi-millionaires, there is a huge different. Example, Leona Lewis (worth about £10 million) is a millionaire but Simon Cowell is a multi millionaire (worth well over £100 million). calvin999 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The term Multi-million definitely does translate into 2 million or more, but since it's not specific, you may want to omit using that source altogether since there will always be editors who will question it. For example, I personally don't like using Italy's posted certifications for those records which have sold between 1x Platinum and Diamond, because, similarly, Italy's FIMI doesn't specify whether those records have achieved 2x Platinum, 3x Platinum, 4x Platinum or 5x Platinum, they simply state Multi-platinum. If you ask me it's vague and not very useful for verification purposes.--Harout72 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say use "the album has sold over 2 million copies worlwide." Saying the album is multi-million selling, sounds weird. Obviously that means 2 million or more, so I don't know why there's an issue. The source states multi-platinum, or multi-million? So we should say it, but in a way it makes sense. Jayy008 (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

@Calvin999, well judging from the album's chart positions and certifications, I'm sure it didn't sell more than 2, but since 2 is multi, the label is using their wording wisely to make it sound its best. I would say its safe to say 2 or at least 2--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I really go against saying things like "at least," it sounds like we really don't know what the sales actually are. Jayy008 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, strike that Id say over 2--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayy008 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's exactly the point, Jamie: we don't really don't know what the sales actually are. So it is not at all wrong to convey that to the reader. In fact, it's our obligation. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

First, the term "Multi-million" is ambiguous, unspecific, and questionable. 3 million, 4 million, 32 million, and so on are also "multi-million". You can not just assume "multi-million" = "2,000,000", that's simply WP:OR. We really need a source writing explicitly 2 million copies. I wonder why her label did not write the exact number for Memoirs sales, while at the same occasion they wrote 12 million for Merry Christmas and 10 million for TEOM?

Second, don't forget that the album is a commercial disapointment. It only received Gold in USA (500,000), and its overseas sales centainly would not the triple number of it, conridering only Silver in UK, gold in Brazil, and acccording to Carey's website Platinum in Korea. Not to mention, the album is uncertified in world's largest market like Japan, Germany, France, and Australia. Surely, I believe Memoirs sales are not higher than One million, based on its chart performance and certifications. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We are not proposing saying flat out 2m. We are proposing "The album has sold over 2 million copies worldwide," whether or not it's correct, it's reliably sourced. Jayy008 (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayy008, "The album has sold over 2 million copies worldwide," calvin999 (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all Blue, while certifications mean allot, when your counting certifications or sales of an album that had very weak sales, its not the same. The album Peaked at #6 in Australia, that could have produced reasonable sales, it just isn't certified. Also, Japan, E=MC2 peaked at #7 and is certified Gold, Memoirs peaked at #9. Not much difference, you can be sure it sold a solid 70,000+ copies. In France, The Emancipation of Mimi peaked at #4 and has sold over 175,000 copies (gold). Memoirs peaked at #10. You can be sure it at least sold 50,000+ copies in France, but is still uncertified. In Canada, the album peaked at #5, not a bad number. Could very well have sales of 30-40,000. Not including all the smaller European and non-major countries in Asia, where Carey's name still sells (she still is the best-selling international artist in Asia) that we dont have info on. As you see, when were talking about a difference of 1,000,000 its very easy to prove.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, again and again, that's all only your assumption, which is a kind of WP:OR. Chart peaks can not determine sales, and the fact is Memoirs only Silver in UK, Gold in Brazil, and Platinum in Korea would not turn 1.5 million. Again and again, "multi-million" is not the same with "2,000,000" that you wrote on this page. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the point of this discussion; To choose a better wording. The sentence I chose, is more appropriate than what's where now. But saying "The album is multi-million selling worldwide," just doesn't sound right. Jayy008 (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How about, "The album is a multi-million seller worldwide, according to the label.^[1]" ? It's possible, maybe even probable, that over two million were sold, but maybe it was only 1.74 million, which I can imagine the flack at the record company arguing was "multi-million". Then, too, maybe the multi-million was really only shipments, and when the returns for the (apparently flopping) album come back, they'll have actually sold 1,260,491 units. We don't know, based on this one flimsy source, and we shouldn't claim more than we "know" from it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would vote to remove that statement, because the term "multi-million" is unspecific and questionable. Let's wait a source that has explicit number of Memoirs sales. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Blue, I say this with no offense intended, but we all are trying to come up with a reasoning and a compromise, however your the only one that seems to refute everything. I see your current stubborn viewpoints as disruptive and unethical. It does NOT matter if the certifications equal 1M or 2M, we have a reliable source. Since you keep bringing up Wiki terms, I'll bring one myself, Wiki:Verify which clearly states that we go by "Reliability and verifiability NOT truth."--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, my main problem is not about "2 million copies sold" but for using "multi-million" to back up that claim. You have NOT verified anything. If you can provide a source writing explicitly 2 million, this discussion has to be over. Again and again "multi-million" is NOT same with "2,000,000". Bluesatellite (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Charts in France wrote clearly one million copies for Memoirs. I assume that this website is reliable, since it is also used to back up E=MC2 sales on this page. I suggest to use this source until we find a direct source that explicitly writing "2 million copies" not just her label's ambioguous term "multi-million. What do you all think? Bluesatellite (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It means AT LEAST 2! If its 2 or more, than 2 IS verifiable. You come here, having done NOTHING and just come here to be disruptive. If something is there, and its verifiable and sourced, it STAYS even if you disagree, unless you have consensus. I re-made this article, and brought it to its current FL-level, so for you to come out of the blue, and just removing sourced material and reverting is wrong. Jamie and I are clear, that more than you have. And everyone else expressed how its not a big deal, no one said they agree with you. We will wait for the last of them. --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be rude Peter, I do NOT remove a verifiable and sourced claim, you have NO source for writing 2,000,000. You only keep your assumption that "multi-million" = 2,000,000, which is not true and can be WP:OR. I also did not destroy the FL quality of YOUR article! Bluesatellite (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it was MY article. I said I fix it up and make it FL and you RUIN it, thats what I said. And yes, I will be rude, because if you were half decent I thought you were, you would have approached me on my talk page before formulating an edit-war. So YOU don't be rude. You wait, once everyone chimes in here, we'll see what happens.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Any amount higher than a million (or its multiple) can be considered multi. But, as the exact certification (two times or more) is not available, I guess we should really go with what Jamie or John said. Novice7 talk 09:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I also agree with what Jamie said, as indicated above.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• IMO in that source "multi-million" just means more than a million, even if it is deliberately ambiguous. I agree with JohnFromPinckney. Angel ^{talk to me} 11:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How does "multi" mean 1? Multi means 2 or more.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're right, but reading the article my impression is that the expression "multi-million" is used just to let us think that it has sold more than two million, while it might be nearly two millions. It is not clear. We should not cite any figure if they don't. So let us say "The album is a multi-million seller worldwide, according to the label". Angel ^{talk to me} 12:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out one thing about chart positions. High chart positions do not immediately translate into huge sales unless a record (single or album) spends weeks within the top-10 or top-20. In other words, if an album enters the chart at No.5 in its first week of release and drop out of the top-20 the following week and disappears from the charts in a few weeks, that album is not going to generate major sales regardless of its appealing peak position. Back to Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel, judging from its only few certifications, Gold in US (500,000), Silver in UK (60,000), Gold in Brazil (30,000), and considering that it has not sold 1 million copies in the entire European continent, I'd say the chances are rather slim that this album may have even sold 2 million units worldwide, perhaps 1.5 million, but it's a big stretch. And I would not rely on a statement coming directly from labels such as Island Def Jam as they always tend to overblow the actual figures. Similarly, the choice of their wording Multi-million is not anything reliable either. Nathan, I'd say we look for other sources. --Harout72 (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Harout72, IDJ has actually deflated her sales before. I'm not saying they would have done it with Memoirs, that wouldn't be possible with how well the album did. I'm just going to change my opinion, rather than what I said, I'd go with what John said. I like the "according to her label" aspect. That seems to be how things are going here on Wiki. Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then how would we incorporate what John said into a discography? You need numbers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

2,000,000+? Jayy008 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Does anyone else agree to using 2,000,000+ for the discography?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I urgently and emphatically disagree with using "2,000,000+". How we jumped to that conclusion after all of this discussion is a mystery to me. If we're going to say "2,000,000+" we can just as easily say "at least two million" or "more than two million". But the point of this entire thread is that the sole source is not clear (and reliable) enough to reach that conclusion. And on top of that, even if we all universally agreed that "multi-million" in the DefJam press release meant at least two million, without any doubt, the plus sign says something more than that, and we have no right to add it.— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How to add the sales (or is it really shipments) figures to the discography? Like this: we don't mention it in the table at all, because we don't (and can't, yet) know what number to put there. But we can add a mention of it to the intro, since it's already four paragraphs long, and that gives us some space to mention the uncertainty of the numbers, since we're not confined to the tabular must-have-some-exact-looking-number convention. How 'bout that? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nathan, I have to disagree. It could perhaps be used somewhere within the albums' page or Carey's main article to refer to Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel as Multi-platinum seller, but for discography we'd need something very specific. And I'm sure we'll have editors in the future questioning its vagueness.--Harout72 (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we wouldn't. There was a discussion some time ago about using a "+" sign where exact sales weren't know. Do you remember, Nathan? It was a discussion you and I had with Kevin? Jayy008 (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I remember, but if Harout disagrees thats ok. We'll wait for everyone else.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jayy008, IDJ has deflated her sales? Do you track her record sales so you know that? lol As per Harout72 and my previous comment, I disagree to put "2,000,000+" because that's totally unverifiable, just your assumption of vague term "multi-million". I'm sorry but we really need other independent editors here, who can view the problem outside Fan point-of-view. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, they have deflated her sales, I know as a Madonna fan you don't like to hear that, but IDJ claimed 175 million records until this year, something way deflated! And listed "Merry Christmas" sales at 11 million when they are Well over 12.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just came in and read all the above. I agree with those that hint that 'multi-million' could certainly be the result of a WP:WEASEL way for her record label (not an uninterested independent source, mind you) to 'round up' say 1.51 million to the nearest whole number. It is not appropriate to expect readers to do any research on the charting peaks and certs (and adding up the numbers) to see if it fits. We are to report the source accurately. To this end, if this source is to be used, it should be stated as John has suggested, "The album is a multi-million seller worldwide, according to the label.^[1]".—Iknow23 (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read the entire thread. Its pretty tricky, but I dont see how you guys would call it "Weasel" or "Original research". I mean multi means more than two, so I don't see the problem. I would agree to what Jay or Peter say and agree with writing 2,000,000+.--AlastorMoody (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Suppose I come back and say, "multi" means "more than one". How would that reshape your views (or this discussion)? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol, how about "John your nuts, "Multi" means more than two" hehe, I don't know what to say, Multi is more than two.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's my point! We can not easily say "multi-million" = "2,000,000". That's simply an opinion of Nathan. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Iknow23. The most accurate statement would be "The album is a multi-million seller worldwide, according to the label.[1]", especially when her label avoids giving an exact figure! I think we agree that the album has sold nowhere near 2 million copies. Adding known sales/shipments and estimating sales figures for the other countries, the album clearly underperformed. Reidlos (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where you see all this "agreement" that the album didn't sell 2 million. Anyway, this truth means nothing, considering we rely on verifiability not truth, so that means nothing.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's laughable. Nathan, I still remember how you have problem in Talk:Jennifer Lopez in which Rolling Stone claimed "50 million albums" and also Talk:List of best-selling music artists where you have problem with Tina Turner's sourced claim 180 million. Well, both of them are clearly sourced and explicitly stated. Now, if we talk about "Mariah Carey", you do the different, by describing WP:V, verifiability not the truth. Even you don't even have clear source for claiming "2,000,000", only by using the term "multi-million" based on your own assumption. 09:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you knew how to read, and didn't just look to BS you would understand what I clearly wrote above. In terms of an artists entire sales repertoire, we DO view certifications as important, even with sources. However, like I said above, when we are talking about an album that had weak sales and the difference is between 1 & 2 million, we can't count on certifications, because most of its sales are low and remained uncertified. So don't twist things, and try and bring a comparison in between an album that sold 1-2 million and an artist that we are arguing in between 20-50 million and 80-180 million.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Iknow23, for the prose side of things. PS. The statements I made was about IDJ claiming 175m when it was 200m. Jayy008 (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

CallMeNathan, please don't fool yourself. Even if we added sales/shippments from uncertified countries (by analyzing market share, chart positions it wouldn't add up to 2 million units. Reidlos (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Reidlos, but my "main" problem is not about 2 million, but for using "multi-million" claim from her label to cite "2,000,000". I don't mind if Nathan or the others find a source writing explicitly "2 million". That's all Bluesatellite (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So what's the consensus? I see most editors disagree to place the number "2,000,000" by using her label's term "multi-million". Bluesatellite (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the truth is Blue we don't have any consensus. Some editors say 2m is fine, some say multi-million is fine, some say nothing is fine. Being that I doubt this will get cleared up, we'll have to take the middle road. I will remove the 2m figure from the table, but add the multi-million claim in the lead. And at Reidlos, you would be very surprised. Do we have information on most Asian countries? No. Does the album have certifications in most European countries? No, but it has decent peaks in some countries. I won't argue about it, because were arguing over a trivial amount, maybe a million, 800k, so it doesn't really matter.

New proposition Blue showed us a source that was previously placed in this article, from ChartstoFrance, claiming 1m. What do you guys say to adding 1m with that source to the table and in the lead writing her label claims its a worldwide multi-million seller?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nathan, I don't mean to deflect this discussion from its direction but most of the Asian markets with an exception of the Japanese market do not generate much sales, so the total sales figure would not change much even if you had their sales or the certifications. And again, high chart-peaks do not translate into major sales unless a record remains in the top-20 for weeks, and therefore, we don't have certifications for most of the European markets. By the way, 11 million stated by Island Def Jam for Merry Christmas is quite reasonable (not deflated as suggested above) considering all the certifications and Japan's actual sales figure. It, in fact may not even reach 11 million in actual sales as I'm counting some 8.5 million based on certifications and Canada's and Japan's actual sales figures, but it's a discussion for another time and place. In regards with Nathan's new proposition, Charts in France states A little less than 1 million but it seems more solid/reliable than the one in question, I'd agree to include that in the table.--Harout72 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Harout, where are you getting 8.5 million from? The album is certified 5x Platinum in the US (5M). 2.5 million in Japan (7.5). 200K in Canada, 280K in Australia, and between 1-2 M in Europe. That is between 9-10 million. Now the sales in Japan are over 12 years old, and at that point (right after music box) Carey sold an immense amount of records in Asia, and judging from Japan we can easily see the last 2M. Music Box sold over 1M in Korea, 350K in Taiwan etc. Besides, you have said yourself certifications only add up to a most 80% of sales, and we dont have them for every territory. See my point? :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, certifications do cover some 80% of the actual sales sales, but then, Japan's figure is an actual sales figure (with some more on the top of 2.5 million since it's not new), and so is Canada's and so is US (5,048,000), and if you're going to look at the European continent's sales as you do above, between 1 and 2 million, well, that is very much like looking at the entire Europe's sales, correct? So between 9 and 10 million with some more from other tenuous markets, would you not say that 11 million is reasonable? Also, see how small the Asian markets are here (on page 24), much smaller than Austria's and even Poland's market. Anyways, we'd better concentrate on what we all came here for.--Harout72 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a few comments before we fix other issues. SO yeah, Japans sales are higher now. The album re-charted almost every year since then. Canada's 200K are initial shipments, not indicating current sales. Australia are certifications etc. Well I again won't argue for the amount of 1M, that kind of amount is unidentifiable. Anyway, I would like to place the chartsinFrance thing in the chart and the multi-million thing in the lead. Good?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, We can write on the lead as User:JohnFromPinckney suggested above. For Charts in France, I got it from the history of this page, I remember that it was used before. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Take a look now and tell me what you think.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)