Latest on MJJC

Let's demand Wikipedia Change Their Michael Jackson record stats.

CNB

CNB

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
57
Points
0
Location
Melbourne, Australia
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ler-really-sell-a-hundred-million-copies.html

This article can be a little negative (for example stating Dangerous and Bad didn't see too well when they are two of the biggest selling albums of all time!!!!)

But it makes some good points.

1. Michael Jackson sold over 500 million records.
2. Thriller SHOULD already have been certified 30x platinum in America and the first and only album to be triple diamond.
3. The Beatles and Elvis' figures are overinflated. Beatles should be from 450-550 million whilst Elvis is probably at 300 million.
4. Michael Jackson has sold 90 million records since his death and over 100 million this century making him the biggest selling artist of the 21st century.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists - Look for yourself

I think it's time the record books reflect who the true biggest selling artist is of all time. The Beatles & Michael Jackson neck and neck, if anything, Michael Jackson ahead because those are record sales we can actually confirm without ludicrous estimates.

Michael Jackson deserves to be remembered and credited as the greatest selling artist of all time.

Off The Wall - 20 Million
Thriller - 66-105 million
Bad - 35-45 million
Dangerous 32-40 million
HIStory - 21 million
Blood On The Dance Floor - 6 Million
Invincible - 13 Million
Number Ones - 25 Million
The Essential MJ - 17 Million
King Of Pop - 5 Million
This Is It - 10 Million
Michael - 5 Million

Singles
We Are The World - 20 Million
Ill Be There - 5 Million
Billie Jean - 7 Million
Beat It - 6 Million
Thriller - 6 Million
Earth Song - 4 Million
I Want You Back - 5 Million

This is atleast 300 million and we can actually see that.

The Beatles I could only confirm up to 250 million sales and Elvis, well...150 million.

History books need to change peeps, Mike needs his recognition as GOAT.
 
don't bother Wikipedia is quite BS for MJ matters, like Bad Tour, Dangerous Tour and HIStory Tour articles. People are adding in supposed cancelled concerts (which may be the case but it messes up the articles soo much) and so much trivial info. :S

Anyone can go edit Wikipedia, if you want, you can go and edit it if you have sufficient sources.
 
Yeah, Wikipedia is a very unreliable source, because anyone with an agenda can edit it. I actually went into a little debate with them a few weeks ago that in their best selling albums of all time article they changed the number for Thriller to 50-65 million (earlier it was 65-100 million) because some Madonna fans who are jealous of Michael threw a hissy fit about that. At the time I wrote to them:

I agree that the 110 million number was probably not realistic, however now we have three albums on the top as quoted selling 50 million (OK, Thriller 50-65 million) when Thriller has almost the double of the certifications than the second and third placed album. That's odd to say the least. For others it's enough to quote articles on sales (which are either accurate or inaccurate - and frankly, it's not only MJ for whom papers publish inflated numbers), but for MJ now almost only the certified units are accepted... If Back in Black can be quoted as selling 50 million with 25.3 million certified unites, then why can't be Thriller put CLEARLY ahead with 42.1 million certified units? Or let's put it this way: Back in Black is certified 22 million in the USA, Thriller 29 million. In all other markets where certifications are available for both albums Thriller clearly (and often by far) outsold Back in Black. So is it realistic to say now that both sold 50 million? I don't think so. I think to say that Thriller sold at least about 65 million would not be off the mark or irrealistic, considering its certifications.
Click to expand...

An editor answered this:

You make a very good point: I've seen websites where Back in Black is claimed to have sold as little as 34 million copies worldwide.
It pains me to say this, but the policy here in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Furthermore, we editors are not "truth finders". Nonetheless, drastically lowering the sales of one album while leaving another's intact is a double standard.
The reason why a few editors and I decided to add a column with certifications in the first place was that editors notice, discuss, and solve problems like the one you just mentioned above.

Finally, there's nothing surprising about having 3 albums with a claim of 50 million or 12 albums with a claim of 30 million. It's simply how the media works- they round numbers and exaggerate sales to round figures that end in a 0. It is similar to buying things at a store for 49.99 or 29.99, but backwards.
Why say an album has sold 28 or 29 million copies when you can claim it sold a much more impressive "30 million copies worldwide"?

You'll notice that out of the times an album's sales have been increased during 2011 and 2012, they've almost always increased to a number ending in 0:

•Come on Over: 39 million--> 40 million
•Faith: 20 million--> 25 million
•The Dark Side of the Moon: 45 million--> 50 million
•Back in Black: 49 million--> 50 million
•Metallica: 28 million--> 30 million
•Come Away with Me: 20 million--> 26 million
•Nevermind: 26 million--> 30 million
•...Baby One More Time: 26 million--> 30 million
Click to expand...

So he basically admitted I was probably right, but "Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability". Quite amazing, isn't it? "Verifyibility" to them means, that if you can give an article as a source for a number then it is verifyable. No matter who wrote it any why and with what agenda and how he meant it. And these Madonna fans gave links to several articles where Thriller was quoted as selling 50 million. Thing is that the numbers in the media can be all over the place - also journalists will copy each other on that. I suppose that 50 million is an estimated number based just on certification. But when I see that the media then quoted AC/DC's Back in Black as having sold 50 million too, when its certifications are almost only half of Thriller's then there is a huge double standards about that in the media. But Wikipedia only cares about: can you give a reference, a source for a claim? If you can then it's "verifyable", even if not true. Ridiculous. This policy is even more harmful in the articles about the allegations against Michael, which haters take advantage of. You know how a lot of crap was written about Michael, a lot of untrue stuff, but by Wiki's standards they are "verifyable" because they can give a source for that (sources like Maureen Orth, Dimond etc) so claims from them can go in, even if they are not true. I also find it horrible that Taraborelli's books are used as a source throughout all the MJ articles. Actually, Wiki's policy is regarding book sources that only books can be used as a source which weren't self published. How ridiculous is that? A lot of non self-published books contain untruths - and Taraborelli's contains a lot of untruths but he can be used as a source because his book wasn't self published (as if that means something about credibility). But you cannot use for example Geraldine Hughes' book which was self-published. Even though Geraldine actually was an eye-witness to what went on in Barry Rothman's office in 1993, while Taraborelli was not, he just collected all the tabloid crap into a book.

Now, Thriller is put slightly ahead, quoted as selling 51-65 million, while the second and third placed album 50 million, but it's still double standards when we consider their certifications. But when I read that answer about Wikipedia not being about the truth, but about verifiability I gave up. That policy kind of says it all about Wikipedia. Too bad that so many people use it as a source.

An advice: if you are trying to get them edited the numbers or any of their MJ articles, be polite, try to argue rationally and try to sound neutral. It's better if you don't show them that you are an MJ fan because if you do then they will automatically assume you are biased. (Even though the haters those go to Wikipedia to edit MJ articles are just as biased and with an agenda.)
 
Last edited:
Very interesting Respect77

So basically Wiki will quote Beatles at 1 billion and MJ at 750 because that's what their record companies say even if it's not the truth?

Because the truth would be MJ & Beatles 500million + and Elvis at 350-400 million.

Could I possibly ask the record company why MJ's sales haven't been updated since clearly he's been promoted as selling over 750 million records for the past 10 years when he's possibly sold 120 million records since then?
 
^^ Yes, if the claim comes from a source that is according to Wiki's creteria "verifyable" then they will include it, no matter if it's true or not. Hence all these crazy numbers are flying around for the Beatles and Elvis too. If enough article claims and if his record company claims that Elvis sold over 1 billion records then that becomes "verifyable" even if not true. And IMO it's obviously not true. There is no evidence for it, no certified records supporting it, just claims. Yet, that number has been retold and claimed so many times in the media that it became accepted as true. Yes, it's the same with the 750 mio claim for Michael as well, but he's certainly not the only artist whose numbers are sometimes overinflated in the media. The same goes for Elvis and the Beatles.

I think probably the Beatles are the biggest selling artists of all time, based on their popularity and also on their number of records which is a lot, lot more as what Michael released. Because Michael has relatively few records it's not easy for him to compete in this category with the top runners who are ahead alone based on the sheer number of their records, even though on average Michael's albums have been bigger sellers. But no artist sold over 1 billion, that's PR BS, I'm pretty certain of that.
 
CNB said:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...ler-really-sell-a-hundred-million-copies.html

This article can be a little negative (for example stating Dangerous and Bad didn't see too well when they are two of the biggest selling albums of all time!!!!)

But it makes some good points.

1. Michael Jackson sold over 500 million records.
2. Thriller SHOULD already have been certified 30x platinum in America and the first and only album to be triple diamond.
3. The Beatles and Elvis' figures are overinflated. Beatles should be from 450-550 million whilst Elvis is probably at 300 million.
4. Michael Jackson has sold 90 million records since his death and over 100 million this century making him the biggest selling artist of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Interesting article.
But I would also like to read an article with a title like "Did the Beatles really sell ---- million records?" :D
 
Michael sold 100 to 110million copies of thriller case closed.
 
Bubs said:
No they sold 2 Billion:rofl:

http://www.statisticbrain.com/the-beatles-total-album-sales/
Click to expand...

I'd like them to break down how they come up with those crazy numbers. You know the same way as Thriller's sales are broken down. ;)

The sales by country data on that page added makes up only for 250 million and that includes the biggest record buying countries of the world - US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, Australia, Canada etc. So even if we assume the rest of the world bought as may as that too (not likely) that's still only 500 million. So where are the other 1.8 billion albums?

I guess Elvis' estate/record company will have to do something to trump it, so next they will claim he sold 3 billion. :p

But of cource only Michael's PR will ever be called out on such exaggerations. ;)
 
respect77 said:
I guess Elvis' estate/record company will have to do something to trump it, so next they will claim he sold 3 billion. :p

But of cource only Michael's PR will ever be called out on such exaggerations. ;)
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Elvis fans are far ahead of already, 2. 5 billion they claim
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090628201748AAA6Vx8

According to the R.I.A.A., the governing body that certifies Gold, Platinum, and Multi-Platinum Record Sales, (Recording Industry Association of America) the Leading all time Artist in Record Sales is ELVIS PRESLEY. Elvis is the leading sales artist for both Solo Artist or Group. Elvis has sold over 2.5 Billion Records Worldwide. ( A Billion is 1 Thousand Million). Elvis has been on the charts more times than any other artist or group. Elvis has the most hits in the Top 100, the Top 40, The Top 10, and has had 32 Number 1 Records. Elvis is the only artist inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, The Country Music Hall of Fame, The Gospel Music Hall of Fame, and The Rythm and Blues Hall of Fame. Elvis was nominated for 41 Grammy Awards, but won only 3... all for Gospel Music.
 
Bubs said:
:rofl:

Elvis fans are far ahead of already, 2. 5 billion they claim
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090628201748AAA6Vx8

According to the R.I.A.A., the governing body that certifies Gold, Platinum, and Multi-Platinum Record Sales, (Recording Industry Association of America) the Leading all time Artist in Record Sales is ELVIS PRESLEY. Elvis is the leading sales artist for both Solo Artist or Group. Elvis has sold over 2.5 Billion Records Worldwide. ( A Billion is 1 Thousand Million). Elvis has been on the charts more times than any other artist or group. Elvis has the most hits in the Top 100, the Top 40, The Top 10, and has had 32 Number 1 Records. Elvis is the only artist inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, The Country Music Hall of Fame, The Gospel Music Hall of Fame, and The Rythm and Blues Hall of Fame. Elvis was nominated for 41 Grammy Awards, but won only 3... all for Gospel Music.
Click to expand...


Like I said in the other thread even Elvis' official website acknowledges that is bullcrap: http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_billion_record_sales.shtml

Sad to see so many people buying it just because the guy sounds convincing citing RIAA as a source (but of course doesn't give a link to where RIAA claimed that). BTW, I have seen this person on YT spewing the same under every MJ video he can find. The exact same claims, so I think it's him. He's an Elvis fan obsessed with MJ for some reason. Finds him threatening? Just a thought. :p
 
^^^ He might have too much time in his hands if that is his hobby:bugeyed

He is either seriously obsessed fan or very competitive person. Even the singer he supports has to be better than anyone else:) Although, I must admit, I too want Michael to win everything, including most records sold title, even thou Michael has many titles already but there is always room for few more:D
Maybe I'm as much obsessed as the person you mentioned:eek::
 
^^ Unless you specifically search out Elvis articles on YT to try to bash Elvis and praise MJ THERE you are not that obsessed. :D
 
Thanks respect for your posts. After reading the new yorker article i went to wiki and wondered why there had been a change in mj's sales of thriller. Ridiculous. I looked at the sources for wiki and of course these people must have been searching for newspaper reports that had thriller at 50m whereas we all know that there are others, like the one that got wyman all worked up about, that claim 100m. The source for pink floyd having 50m is just some newspaper article on killer whales enjoying listening to pink floyd music.
 
That yahoo answer post..:bs'Michael told people to call him the KOP' hahaaa as if
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top