Talk:List of best-selling albums/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removal of claims

As you can see this article is undergoing FA review, one of the requirements is that claims made by FAN SITES be removed and that all claims must be sourced.

• If you noticed that any of the claims are from Fan sites remove the claim from the list, explain that its from a fan site in the edit summary, then bring it here to the talk page. The removed claim with the FAN SITE source should be brought here for further investigation and gives users the opportunity to look for new reliable claims for the album.

• Claims that are not sourced should be deleted immediately.

• If you come across a claim that doesnt match the figure given in the source alter it.

• If the link to a source no longer works remove the claim and bring it here with the source.

• If you believe a source shouldnt be used not because its a fan site but because its a dubious source, tag the SOURCE as dubious, bring up your concerns at the relevant sub heading, but leave the claim on the article until a consensus is resolved either way (more info on this is mentioned in the relevant sub heading below).

Other dubious Sources below this sub heading

Note this section is for;-

• Discussing the past/historical reliability of the source NOT the sales figure it provides.
• This is not a section about whether you believe the sales figure is true or not.
• If the source can be backed up or supported by another source it is no longer dubious.
• Do not remove the claim from the article instead label its SOURCE as dubious.
• Consensus must be reached before any action will be taken, either to keep the claim removing the dubious tag or remove the album from the list.

*Millenium - Backstreet Boy - Link

• • Im not particulary concerned about it myself but as it is labelled dubious im adding it. Any thoughts. The source seems extensive, im not sure but i cant help but feel its almost promotion. Realist2 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps better to remove it, the current source is an interveiw with one of the boys (so not really independent :-) ), and more authoritative sources give numbers of about 12 millionUSA Today, 2007, and 35 million for their first three albums together. Fram (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • But i have seen reasonable sources that say a lot higher. Realist2 (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Care to give one independent source that gives anything in the region of 40 million? An interview with one of the members (and not in a well-known source medium) is not really what I expect. It's not as if they continue to sell a lot of records: Fox News notes that they only sold 9,000 copies of Millennium in 2006, so older total numbers will still be rather accurate. Fram (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
          • We should get together a buch of figures (with sources), the highest figure that comes from a reliable source should be used. I have seen as im sute you have, plenty of reliable people who say a lot more than 12. Realist2 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Almost all estimates I see are around 27-32 million. The 40 million claim was probably a slip of the tongue, although it certainly is much more than 12 million. 12 million was probably in the US? Herunar (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I'll put it at 30 million (BBC link), if people want to quote higher numbers (32 million, 40 million, please provide a reliable independent source for it. Fram (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Yeah im happy with that strick as resolved.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed from GAN list

Hey - I looked over Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of best-selling albums worldwide/archive1 I don't think TRM was being serious in pointing you towards GAN. There's no such thing as a "good lists" that I'm aware of...it's featured or nothing, unfortunately. As per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#What_is_not_a_good_article.3F, a list can't be a GA...again, sorry about the confusion. Please do work on the issues raised at the FLC and give it another shot...cheers, dihydrogen monoxide ([[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|H₂O]]) 10:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha sorry i must have not got that it was a joke, language barrier i guess. Realist2 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Faith (Resolved)

the worldwide sales of the album Faith by George Michael claimed to be over 20 million , sources:

• http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/artists/georgemichael.htm
• http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/462423/
• http://64.233.169.104/searchq=cache:5Ya34FtWaRgJ:mog.com/music/George_Michael+faith+20+million+george+michael&hl=ar&ct=clnk&cd=6
• http://www.comcastspectacor.com/pressbox/670.asp
• http://www.gotickets.com/concert/george_michael.php

Is that enough????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.248.122 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The second source might be reliable enough. Ill wait a few days, if no1 opposes i will add. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been added. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Road

The album is listed with record sales of 30 million. In 2004 Rolling Stone said it was 12 million. APK ^{yada yada} 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolling stone is ultra american bias, when they say 12 million that usually just means US platinum certifications. Ive had this problem with them and michael jackson, they only comment about him in terms of american sales aswell. I looked online for a worldwide sales, so far the highest i managed to find was 18.8 million, keep looking for a while. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find that figure? I'm still looking. APK ^{yada yada} 21:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was yesterday, i will look again, i didnt worry about it because even at 18.8 its still not enough to be on this article lol. Yes that 12 million figure is definately US sales only. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All I keep finding are American figures. APK ^{yada yada} 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats from 1992 lol, Thriller is at 27 mil in america now not 21 mil. This beatles album is bloody hard to find anything on, if we cant do it im sure someone can. Check dates aswell, for example if its from 1992 i would safely say its no longer reliable. I used a source by cnn from 1999 and that was pushing it. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you're having as hard a time to find it as I am. I found some links, but they are completely wrong ("Thriller has 14 million sales worldwide" wrong) :) I'll help you with some of the easier-to-find albums. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

14 million worldwide, lol sounds like a hate site, 14 million in belgium they mean. ;-) You dont have any beatles books that give figures? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Found a site that says 30 million! Already put it in. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Consensus needed of official artist sites

Do we or do we not count official artist sites as reliable sources? Ive been off and on with this matter all week, ive been reluctant to revert them because they ARE better than most sources. However their not Third party claims are they. Is it a case by case thing? Some official sites better than others? A blanket ban or let all in? Thoughts?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a pink floyd and ABBA enter that have these sources, just wondering what the position is? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay (and not just because I put those sites in). Please inform me on what states that we need third-party claims. I think first party claims are fair game, especially in this case, because if these companies exaggerate, there will be consequences for them. Plus, I've found many other websites that say the same thing, but none of them are sourcable (blogs, fan sites, etc.). That's my opinion, feel free to degrade and undermine it as you please (that's what's happening in the government anyways). :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If they pass FA im fine with it, i just wasnt sure, we can always leave them in and see what happens at the review. It wouldnt take too long to replace them anyway if it became an issue. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL

I just went looking on the albums article page hoping to find reliable sources for these claims, none of the sources on articles are reliable. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually, when I look at the article page, I find the number of albums sold but no ref at all. Hmm...you're lucky, finding a reference at all, even if it isn't reliable. :) Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Kodster, lol what, did you put your reply im the wrong heading? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Genres

For albums that have multiple genres can we have a consensus to put the genres in ABC order. ThoughtsRealist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For example Thriller is labelled as "R&B/Pop" in the article. Shouldnt we change it to Pop/R&B ? --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)\

Yeah, okay. LOL, just noticed that. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Born in the U.S.A.

This link says that Born in the U.S.A. sold only 15 million copies since its release in 1984. Should we take it off the list? It is one more fact to reference. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Another link saying the same thing. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link that says the album only sold 15 million copies in the U.S. Though, the website doesn't look too reliable. I think it'd be best to take off Born in the U.S.A. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 01:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill go check the RIAA to find out its america sales now. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

here 15 million is USA only. Cheers Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Added a 20 million ref from the BBC, so can stay on the list... Fram (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Format

Should we have a format section like the genre section to name it studio, greatest hits, remix, etc etc? --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't do that unless someone says we have to in the FL review. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Cut off margins

Catagories are really inconsistant.

• 100+
• 40–45
• 30–39
• 25–29
• 20–24

I suggest

• 100+
• 40-44
• 35-39
• 30-34
• 25-29
• 20-24

Thoughts, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ive just noticed that actually there would only be 3 to 4 albums in a prepossed 35-39 catagory lol. Not so sure now? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What we could do is take out the unsourced ones from "20-24", so the list will be shorter; then we could combine the "20-24" and the "25-29". It's not the best idea, but it's all I've got that would be okay visually. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, i dont want to take them out for the sake of making it look nicer, remember someone else could eventually find sources for them months later. Therefore it wound need to be split out again. Maybe its ok as it is, theres no point making a 35-39 coloumn when hardly any would go there. We could have a 35-45 coloum which would contain about 8 albums. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea:

What I suggest
20-25 = 36 albums
26-31 = 17 albums
32-37 = 8 albums
38-43 = 4 albums
100+ = 1 album

What we have now
20-24 = 30 albums
25-29 = 14 albums
30-39 = 17 albums
40-45 = 4 albums
100+ = 1 album

So it's not a totally bad idea. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i like it. Lets do that. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean right now? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 16:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Was there ever a better time, ;-) Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ace Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Things to do

• OK, theres just 8 more to find. Yeah!!!
• Lead - expand some how and source
• A picture or two might be nice, some famous album covers perhaps
  • Pictures are probably a bad idea, they are all copyrighted and wouldn't qualify as fair use in a list like this. A pity, but they would have to go if you ever wanted to reach FL status anyway. Fram (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I spoke to an admin that told me i could get fair use rationals for them as long as there were not to many. I only put it on this list after checking with him first. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm an admin as well, but not an expert on images :-) I think the best solution would be to have free images of artists being presented with gold / platinum / diamond records, but I don't know if we have any. I could find any on Commons at first glance. Fram (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Its something to think about anyway. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• We must centralise the genres in there boxes. They go to the left of their box while the dates are central.
  • DONE
• There needs to be a space between the sales figure and the source so that there not too close to eachother. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • DONE
  • Or should we have a separate column for the reference? Just an idea, I've seen it done on others FLs before. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We could do, im not sure if its worth it. Hmm. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Nah, forget about it. No point, I'll fix the references so that there's a space between. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Cheers, it looks neat now, make sure we do the same for the future sources too. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Fix categories per above section.
  • DONE 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Claims of"

I looked at the FL candidate page, and someone said that we should take out the "Claims" in the headings (so "Claims between 20-25 million copies" beoomes just "Between 20-25 million copies). Do you think we should do that? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Again, looking at the FL candidate page, someone also said that the footnotes should be put in their own column (see List of HIV-positive people for an FL example). How about it? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 18:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. I'm assuming they should be centered? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, sounds silly though doesnt it, shall i do it?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I did it using AWB. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CHEAT!!! ;-), im thinking we should maybe colour the boxes, like this.... hmm never mind they removed it, anyway in the paste ive seen the heading for the source coloumn highlighted in a colour, usually light pink. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's best to use Featured Lists as guides, since that's what we are ultimately aiming for. Looking at that HIV list, there were no colors. Best not to do extra work only to have to remove it later. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 23:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Realist² ('Come Speak To M') 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

FL (CLOSED)

Ok are we ready for FL? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The moment we've all been waiting for! Yes, we are ready for FL, I think. You're going to put pictures after it passes? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Might not bother. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK fingers crossed. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In A Gadda Da Vida (Resolved)

I have seen it claimed in various places that it has sold over 25 million copies worldwide. Does anyone have an appropriate link, and could then add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Rgne (talk • contribs) 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, sorry that's 30 million, not 25... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Rgne (talk • contribs) 18:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If its reliably sourced it can be added, ive never heard the claim myself but if sourced its not a problem. Please sign your posts otherwise it doesnt come up on my watchlist, and i dont know youve left a message. Cheers. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Ball-Iron-Butterfly/dp/B000025APG http://www.classicbands.com/IronButterflyInterview.html http://daz.com/artists/Iron%20Butterfly.html http://www.jambase.com/Artists/42998/Iron-Butterfly/Bio

I also have the book "Guinness Book of Rock Stars"(the 1993 edition:( ). At that point the album was said to have sold "over 25 million copies worldwide". The 30 million figure is from 2006, I think. Note that Rolling Stone magazine (and also the In A Gadda DA Vida wiki page(?) ) have the figure listed at 4 million!! In reality the platinum award was specifically created by Ahmed Ertegun(sp?) as "the album has gone gold at least 20 times over" (quote from the Guinness Book). Dr Rgne (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wc can see what others think but im not sure any of the sources are reliable enough. I cant see a sales figure in the Amazon link. The classic bands source is just an interview with passing comments - anything can be said in an interview. The last two are better but they have no auther details or date. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly would be an acceptable source? It is unlikely that a "modern rock" magazine would do an article stating the sales of a 1968 album. I could have listed hundreds of sites where the figure of 30 million is accepted as fact. There are some links on this article that are essentially just some website stating something matter-as-factly. The 30 million sales for In A Gadda Da Vida is far more widely accepted than the "104 million" sales of Thriller(most reports say approximately 54 million). I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for... Dr Rgne (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not the figure that is the problem, no1 honestly believes the 104/108 figure but all that matters is there are some damn reliable sources out there that use the figure. Its not the figure, its the source. If you find a source that says "In A Gadda Da Vida" sold 200 million copies and the source was the BBC it would be included instantly regardless of if its believable.

I suggest you look at the sources already in the article to see the quality of them. Some are better sources than others but they're all good (some are slightly outdated though), still im not saying your claim wount be included, others might disagree with my analysis which is absolutely fine. "Kodster" is quit good with these things so i would wait for him to comment. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 10:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Independent lisst it as "over 20 million copies", so I guess it can be added.[1] Fram (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good source, i will add accordingly, cheers. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to offend, but I do not think this has been resolved. The book I mentioned was incorrect. Erm. The correct book is "The Virgin Encyclopedia of Sixties Music" by Colin Larkin. I have the 1997 edition, which I managed to find. It is entirely probable that there are later versions. The ISBN is 0-7535-0149-X, or 9 780753 501498. I'm not sure which number is which. Anyway, on page 247, Iron Butterfly get an article, and near the end of their article it states(and I'm copying word-for-word here) "By 1993 their legendary second album had sold an astonishing 25 million copies and in 1995 the band reformed once more for a further anniversary tour". Obviously their reforming for an anniversary tour in 1995 is irrelevant here, but this respected published source, clearly states the "25 million mark". That's by 1993(and mentioned in 1997). I would be very keen to know if/when Larkin/Virgin updated/published later editions of this book, as I'm pretty sure the "30 million mark" would be noted. That's speculation on my part. However the 1997 book clearly and unambiguously states the "25 million by 1993" part. Dr Rgne (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We cant speculate, we could bump it up to 25 million but ill need to go research and see if the book is viewed as credible/respected. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I realise I'm getting tedious now, but will these do?

http://www.woofstock.org/bands/bands.html http://www.rock.co.za/rockofages/index060216.html http://www.johnrandals.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/urban-legend-in-the-garden-of-eden/

And on and on. If nothing else, the first link should be considered reliable enough. It's certainly more reliable than certain other sources used... Dr Rgne (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because other sources are not perfect doesnt mean we let standards slip to let your suggestion in. The first one is the most reliable, its nowhere near as reliable as the independant source however, i would be reluctant to change it, im not sure your sources are good enough for FL. An admin should express their opinion and ill hapilly support that. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the 25 million can be reliable added from this newspaper source from 2006:[2]. Not so well known as the Independent, but more recent, and reliable enough for our purposes. Sources like woofstock are not acceptable per WP:RS. Fram (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, ill update accordingly, cheers Fram. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC (Resolved)

The reference for Back in Black only claims 19 million albums sold, not the 42 million in the article. Can we please at least have references that match the claims in the Wikipedia article? One of the two needs to be changed - either a more accurate citation or a revised number, but I have no idea which of the two is correct. 09:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are major issues to be raised with this article. What is the "official" number sold of a various albums? Another good example is the aforementioned "Thriller" which has sold anywhere between 54 and 108 million, according to various sources. Either one single final line should be taken, or any wild claims can be added... Dr Rgne (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the AC/DC source does say 42 million, you need to scroll to the bottom, cheers. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do with clear errors in reliable sources? (Stale)

The Brisbane Times seems to be a reliable online newspaper, published by a well-known house. Yet, I doubt that an artist we don't have an article on has sold 20 million copies of one record, as claimed here[3]. I suppose in this case we would be better not to include it in the list? Fram (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to include it theres nothing that can stop them, its a reliable source and we are no experts on sales to dispute it. Thats IMO anyway. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 14:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whitney Houston album sales (Resolved)

I got the official Whitney Houston site whih claims 42 million for the Boduguard [4] (If you want to check, go on [5] and click on bio], compared to this source [6] whoch is less reliable. Even at the bottom of the page, it says "elling albums according to chart expert Hanboo". I got a very reliable source for Whitney's dbeut album, which sold 25 million [7], but again it was reverted and I was accused of vandalism. Please sort this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 octaves (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly the source thats there now, IS reliable and is used multiple times in this article, it was not deemed unreliable at its last FL. Your source is from Whitneys own site, we have avoiding 1st party sources for this article because they were removed at the last FL. Third party sources only please, that have NO attachment to Whitney. You did shuffle everything around and kept edit warring which looked like vandalism. You have also readded it 3 times which violates 3rr. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You said we can't use 1st part sources, but Barbra Steisand's source on list of best-selling albums is her OFFICIAL SITE. So why have you allowed it on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 octaves (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)