Talk:Janet Jackson singles discography/Archive 1

Archive 1

album sales

Upon entering the Janet Jackson discography - I have noticed that someone drastically altered her chart positions and in spite left false information. I have tried to fix the discography to the best of my ability. I hope someone can help fix the tables back to their original state.

The album sales seem to be inflated. 69.249.114.154 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a problem with the Hot 100 Singles chart for Janet Jackson. Scream was #1 single for Michael and Janet Jackson. It debuted at #1 and quickly faded from the chart. The second problem is that the single, If, peaked #2. I have looked at my old Billboard magazines and found that these two singles peaked at #1 and #2, respectively.

Don't know what Billboard youre looking at, but "Scream" debuted (and peaked) at #5 on Hot 100. This confirmed by back issues I have and also an archive search on billboard.biz. You have made these types of incorrect changes with other discogrphies too. Based on above comment I am going to run through this and double-check everything. -- eo 18:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that some of the chart peaks for Canada are wrong, and don't even match the peaks stated in the individual articles. I tried to fix this, but my edits were reverted. Can someone please fix this. The correct chart peaks are listed here-http://www.mjjcharts.com/Canadajanet.htm Thanks

That is not a reliable source. — Realist² 22:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What source are you using?63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to use a source. I'm just reverting unsourced alterations to the article. — Realist² 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, we will keep the false information up then, that's fine. 63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Un-cited and unreliable sales information

The discography currently contains a lot of information that is un-sourced and needs verification (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). I've just finished tidying up the discography and I removed sales information relating to singles simply because its clear its wrong, and its un-cited. As for albums, I left the figures up there at the moment and placed a cite tag () on them. The figures need to be verified or else they have to be removed. Fan sites and other personal websites are not generally seen as reliable (as fans always - without exception in my experience - inflate the figures). Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further assistance.

I will leave the album sales up until the end of April - that should give ample time for a reliable and verifiable source to be found. If not, I'll remove the sales information until a reliable source can be established. Rimmers 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed all the unsourced sales information as no one has been able to provide verifiable or reliable sources for the claims. Rimmers 12:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Rhythm Nation and Control did not sell the same!

• WORLDWIDE, they did, but in the US, Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 1 million more.

• I'm really sorry that I changed a few things that I knew were wrong, but although it's verry petty, my family were telling me that 20 Y.0, and So Excited werent doing good and that nobody cared or liked them, and because I hate to be wrong I purusely changed several things to make it looke like Janet was still on top, well the good is that they belived it and arent talking trash about Janet anymore, I'm realy sorry if I confused anyone. But I hate being wrong especially when its about Janet Jackson, hope you guys can forgive me, I was just defending my baby.

Your reasons were not just. The Janet Jackson Discography article is often a mess because of fans who come along and attempt to inflate sales figures for vanity. Anyone who purposely skews the accuracy of the articles should be banned from Wikipedia. Do not do this again. – The Real One Returns (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

'Weekend' is not the new single!!

Janet's official website has confirmed that the song is not the new single, nor will it feature on the new album. Its just a 'taster' of whats to come. The first single will be called "Call on Me". See www.janetjackson.comRimmers 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New Sources

I have added new sources to this page. Here they are [1]

Former Discography

Alright, I think it's stupid to say that both Control and Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 14 million copies each. This is an idea of what the old discography looked like

Control - 15 million copies sold (5.2 million US) Control: The Remixes - 1.5 million copies sold Rhythm Nation 1814 - 20 million copies sold (9.6 million US) Janet. - 22 million copies sold (7.8 million US) Janet.Remixes - 1.5 million copies sold The Velvet Rope - 12 million copies sold (4.1 million US) All for You - 8.5 million copies sold (3.1 million US) Damita Jo - 3.5 million copies sold (1 million US)

Single Sales Info

What about her single sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.54.48.82 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

With u

Huray Janet's single with U moved up 11 points in the R&B catagorey, yay.

Footnotes

I've removed the footnotes from the article because they are unsourced and non-verifiable. If someone can provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) then the information can be replaced - but as it it, it shouldn't be included in the discography. Rimmers 03:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes:

• U.S. sales of the album janet. are based on 7.0 million Nielsen SoundScan sales, and 860,000 copies of the album sold through BMG Music Club as of 2002. The album is certified by the RIAA for sales of only 6 million, since BMG Music Club is not tracked by Nielsen SoundScan, sales of "janet." are much higher than they have been certified for.
• U.S. Nielsen SoundScan sales of The Velvet Rope are 3.2 million copies, the album also sold 420,000 copies through the BMG Music Club.
• U.S. sales of the album All For You are based on 3.1 million Nielsen SoundScan sales, and 100,000 copies of the album sold through BMG Music Club as of 2002. The album is certified by the RIAA for sales of only 2 million, since BMG Music Club is not tracked by Nielsen SoundScan, sales of "All For You" are much higher than they have been certified for.

Who ever put up those last notes do not put up so random shit. Craving Janet has gone and done the research and put up the links. The sales you put had no links to back it up thus they were removed by me. You made no sense and if you have something to say about the sales you should leave a note in the discussion page you fool. Unless you put links proving that Janet has sold what you think that put your links. craving Janet has done real accurate research do not just leave a link of ambiguous riaa links what crap leave the fucking page alone. It is accurate to the most it can be nobody really knows what she has sold, in fact nobody knows what any artist has really sold are you God. Leave the page these are accurate estimates.

signed Lisksosp

• • Swetheart, An ignorant fan site that made up figures based on SOME sales statistics they THOUGHT they read in SOME magazine is not a viable source. CravingJanet is filled with inaccurate and utterly wrong "facts."

Album covers

Why are the album covers not allowed on this article? What's the problem with taking the cover images featured on the main articles and linking them here? This article looks so BARREN without the album covers. 71.65.23.14 10:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The images are only usable under the fair-use criteria; use in articles like this doesn't meet those criteria, so including them is a copyright violation. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sales Figures

The site that these are linked to has made a major error in their sales data that causes the data to be over estimated. This site therefore is non credible, and there are others available that are. The issue is that they have mixed RIAA (shipped sales) with Soundscan and BMG Music Club (over the counter sales). Stating Music Club sales are not included in Soundscan sales, is a true statement, BUT Soundscan does not equal RIAA. RIAA = Soundscan + BMG [2]. So, Music Club sales have been counted twice. I suggest using [3] 60.234.242.196 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claims about accuracy? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as I have specified. Counting the same sales figures twice is certainly a non accurate way of obtaining sales figures 60.234.242.196 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a statement of what you say that they did; do you have a source for that statement? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no source to my statement. Thanks for pointing that out. Even though I have pointed out that the source used is making an error, I am assuming that you consider this original research. Bad data is better than a second reference that also constitutes being a verified source, and does not have the error? The more sources the better, and the more consensus the better too.60.234.242.196 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no way that I would ever trust a fansite that is associated with MJ. His fans hate on her 100%. And there are no sources to back up their "claims".

Sales Figures Fixed

I fixed Jackson's American and Worldwide sales figures, which were severely inflated by her army of fansites. CravingJanet is a Janet Jackson fansite that published inaccurate figures that are easily refuted by three databases of worldwide sales figures and certifications. I posted my sources that list Jackson's Worldwide sales at less than half of what her fansites falsely report. A&M and VIRGIN may have left Jackson's albums undercertified by 76%, but that doesn't constitute nearly doubling Jackson's Worldwide figures.

Sales Figures Still Inaccurate

After I corrected Jackson's sales figures, someone reverted them back to being wrong and grossly inflated. I'm not going to fight ignorant super-fans; keep the false figures if you want.

It seems like they are way out of proportion and inconsistent with the figures on each respective page. The Velvet Rope, for example, did not exceed 30 million. 46.208.143.163 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Although this entire discussion page has comments from multiple Users saying the sales data being used is not reliable, the actual article goes against the discussion. This is against wikipedia policy. Concensus is formed, and then the majority rule. Maggott2000 17:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no reason for CravingJanet to not be used. The issues raised are non valid for the following: that it is not the website that is combining RIAA, Soundscan and BMG sales, it is editors to this article. It is not the website that has inflated figures, as 3 separate sources state the near same data, so this is the required consistancy. Referencing has been done to include this site. I will remove the neutrality tag. Maggott2000 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

'Discipline' section : unsourced single

Why is there a row for the song '2nite', when there is no official announcement of it being a single, much less a page for it? Someone please remove it. Reqluce (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags as column headers

These need to be removed per WP:FLAGS as they are obviously being used as decoration. More importantly, the flags should not be here in place of wikilinked text showing what the numbers in the columns represent. - eo (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart peaks in Canada

I have noticed that some of the chart peaks for Canada are wrong, and don't even match the peaks stated in the individual articles. I tried to fix this, but my edits were reverted. Can someone please fix this. The correct chart peaks are listed here-http://www.mjjcharts.com/Canadajanet.htm Thanks63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. — Realist² 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What source is being used?63.215.26.168 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion in one place please (as in here). I don't need a source, I'm just reverting unsourced alterations to the article. — Realist² 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Japan charts

She does not have 22 number one singles in Japan. For instance "So Excited" peaked at 13. So what's this business? PhoenixPrince (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many countries!

hey guys, the studio albums table in this article contains too many countries. the guidelines for featured lists and such states a maximum of 10 countries, this one has 14. i suggest cutting them down to US, AUS, CAN, FRA, GER, IRE, NL, NZ, SWE, UK. opinions guys? :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Belgium, Norway and Switzerland and Austria should go because they are relatively small markets and therefore relatively insignificant compared to the others. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

and also maybe SA should be removed from the singles? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

yep agree completely :) Mister sparky (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan should be added because she has a large number of #1's on the japanese charts, and she gets so much respect and attention from Japan they deserve to be added (Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Belgium, Norway and Switzerland and Austria should go because they are relatively small markets, but Ireland is smaller than all of them69.253.121.213 (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Singles needs repair

The singles section needs fixing. There are two 'Soundtrack/other singles' and two 'As featured artist', the second ones need to be removed. Hdk94 (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales figures are greatly skewed.

Janet's domestic and international sales figures need a severe reevaluation. None of the worldwide sales figures have a legitimate source backing these numbers listed, and the domestic figures listed here in many cases do not match the source given. Damita Jo is listed here at 1.5 million domestically, but the Billboard source states 1,002,000; Billboard says that 20 Y.O. sold 655,000 copies, and yet here its domestic figures are shown at one million sold; Billboard says Disciple sold 441,000 copies domestically, and yet here the album is listed at 500,000. Also, I've searched several sources that state janet. worldwide sales are at 16 million, rather than the 20 million shown here. Clearly, fans have gotten hold of this article and are boosting the figures. This article's stats needs to be reorganized. — The Real One Returns 07:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Chart?

Does Janet really have that many numbers ones in Japan? Can someone confirm that? Also, I'm certain Make Me never received a platinum certification and neither did Feedback, so I'm gonna remove those. Floetry Spades (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to Lock Page

Can I request the page be locked once you all clean it up? Floetry Spades (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate sum of U.S. #1 singles

Janet has 10 total U.S. #1 singles, not 11. This needs to be fixed. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.218.166 (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Discipline

Discipline sold 441,000 copies in the US. but certificad Gold by RIAA (500,000 shippiments) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukek26 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC) on the official Island Records website that discipline is sold until November 2009, 950,000-1 million copies in October of that year was certified gold by the RIAA, and in Brazil and Japan in addition to being platinum in Canada where he debuted at number 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukek26 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 is not in the decade of 2010!!

Janet is not the only artist with singles dating in 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s...because guess what? 2009 isn't in the 2010s!! Thanks!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.19.21 (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Make Me is number #1 in january 2010! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.32.238.49 (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources from a MJJ fan website is not Wiki-compliant.

Once again I'm seeing that someone has put up alleged sales info. from that MJJ fan site. I don't have time to edit this out, but if it isn't removed soon, I will do it later. This is not a proper source for Wikipedia. - The Real One Returns (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment, hey there, while I do agree with you on that MJJ site not being a 'reliable source'; it is a source. The numbers provided sound valid to me; they're not some outrageous figures. I've searched high and low for a reliable source that states world sales and cannot find one. If were added to each of the figures given, it could give the reader the opportunity to decide if they think it is reliable or not.

Splitting her Discography into two

Before I begin to do anything, I wanted to get everyones opinion on splitting Janet Jackson's Discography into two; Janet Jackson albums discography and Janet Jackson singles discography. I see that someone already started them two years ago, but it would be nice to separate them. All other artists of her magnitude have this, and I thought it would be a great idea to do the same for her. Her discography is also in need of major updates and if you like the idea, respond with your thoughts and I'll start on it! Thanks! Ga Be 19 06:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anybody care to share they're thoughts? Anybody?? Ga Be 19 06:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I support this notion, though it would be for a single discography, album discography and videography as has been done with Mariah Carey's discography. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

sounds good...whatever format lets us add more info i am all for!Moxy (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I don't like them jumbled up together, we can do that. Hell they did it for Michael so why not lol BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. :) SnapSnap 18:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, because Janet have a large discography--ΛΛLIYΛH (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. La Bouche 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening discussion

I would support a split, as her discography is extensive. An attempt was made this morning to split this, but I don't see any movement on this topic since January. Is everyone still on-board with an article split? - eo (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As it seemed rather unanimous that a split would be appropriate, an attempt at doing this is underway at User:Tombo671/Janet Jackson albums discography and I presume later at User:Tombo671/Janet Jackson singles discography. I'm sure Tombo671 would appreciate any help offered. --Muhandes (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a rough draft saved on my computer that I stared a year ago but haven't finished due to my procrastination haha. As I originally brought it up to split, I can enter and save what I have and appropriate edits could be made by me and others if they would like. It is my desire to get both articles to FA. — Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 08:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Start Anew

Start Anew is an off-album single, the song is not on the Dream Street album. I'm not brave enough to mess with a table, someone please correct it. – Alensha ^talk 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

7 top ten singles form one album

Um...Janet is not the only artist to achieve this feat NOR is she the first. Adam did it in 1983 with seven songs from Thriller: "The Girl is Mine" #2 "Billie Jean" #1 "Beat It" #1 "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" #5 "Human Nature" #7 "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" #10 and "Thriller" #4 108.66.153.230 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you were looking at an erroneous earlier version of the page, but as it stands now the correct record is reflected, which is seven top five singles from one album. --SophiaPehawkins (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead vs. featured artist

For both The Best Things in Life are Free and Scream, Janet is credited on this page as a featured artist rather than as a lead artist. It is my understanding that TBTILAF is actually credited as 'Luther Vandross and Janet Jackson with special guests BBD and Ralph Tresvant' and Scream as 'Adam Jackson and Janet Jackson'. The artwork on their respective pages reflects this. I don't have much knowledge of editing pages right now. Should/could this be fixed? SophiaPehawkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect totals.

The first paragraph is incorrect. Jackson has 16 number ones on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart and 19 number ones on the Hot Dance/Club Play chart. A new source needs to be obtained that reflects these numbers.SophiaPehawkins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The current source, allmusic does support those numbers.--Harout72 (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not a relevant source. These are Billboard totals we're talking about. These aren't debatable numbers. These facts are easily obtained by perusing Billboard's extensively published statistics. SophiaPehawkins (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014

Janet Jackson's sales are outdated. Rhythm Nation 1814 sold 14 million by 1998 but by 2014 it has sold 20 million http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/09/19/janet-jackson-rhythm-nation-1814-25th-anniversary/ 72.95.62.68 (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on the available certified sales for Rhythm Nation 1814, even the currently listed 14 million is inflated, which is a source from 2009. Surely, that album didn't sell another six million within the last five years.

Here is the available certified sales for Rhythm Nation 1814:

• U.S.=6x Platinum (6 million certified units)
• U.K.=Platinum (300,000 certified units)
• Canada=Platinum (100,000 certified units)
• Switzerland=Gold (25,000 certified units)

Based on the available certified units, Rhythm Nation 1814 could not have sold more than 10 million units. In other words, all sales figures higher than that are simply tossed about for promotional purposes.--Harout72 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

14 Million has been used since 1998 for Rhythm Nation. Source is Billboard Magazine. You're skipping 16 years later to 20. Dam!ta (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the album's available certified sales, the number of sold units hasn't changed since then 1998. In fact, even then the 14 million was inflated. The 14 million is still being reported to this day by many, including ABC news.--Harout72 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If we went by "certified" sales, "janet." would only be at 6 million considering it has scanned 7.3 million. The 1814 number has been reported for over 16 years as 14 million, I'm not shocked that they are finally reporting a different number after 16 years. Sadly, Janet is one of the most under-certified acts of the last 20-30 years. Even "All for You" has scanned 3.3 million, but it is only certified for 2 million. "Feedback" has scanned 800,000 units as of 2010 and isn't even certified Gold. Certified sales aren't saying much for an artist that has actually scanned more than she's actually certified for. Dam!ta (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion thread is for Rhythm Nation, so let's keep it on that and not concentrate on other albums. And yes, the certified sales should always be brought in when analyzing reported sales claims. There could always be some units that have yet to be certified, but the actual sold units and the certified units are never that far away from each other. As I said above, there are new sources that still claim 14 million, which you replaced with older ones just to prove your point. That is disruptive editing.--Harout72 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your claim that certified units are never that far from each other is 100% wrong.

• CrazySexyCool 7.3 million SoundScan/11 million RIAA.
• II by Boyz II Men 8.3 million SoundScan/12 million RIAA.
• Cooleyhighharmony by Boyz II Men 6.9 million SoundScan/9 million RIAA.
• "Brandy" by Brandy 2.2 million SoundScan/4 million RIAA.
• "Miss Thang" by Monica 1.3 million SoundScan/3 million RIAA.

Entertainment Weekly is a reputable source we can go by. Why wouldn't we. 14 million has been used for 16 years. 174.44.204.67 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RIAA certified units are sometimes higher than the actual sold units because the certified sales are always based on shipped units in the U.S., and not the actual sold units. In other words, sometimes there are more units are shipped and certified than sold. But that doesn't mean that the certified sales cannot be used to analyze actual claimed figures because most of the time, the certified sales are a bit lower (but not by much) than the actual sales, because the albums/singles/videos need to reach a certain level in each market in order to receive Gold/Platinum award.--Harout72 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2014

Discipline sold 507,000 in the U.S Not 400,000. There needs to be an update on this and the total album sales need to be added. 72.95.62.68 (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the source?--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why have r&b chart figures been eliminated?

She's one of the strongest-performing artists in the history of the US r&b charts. The figures used to be here, but someone's been unnecessarily cut-throat on this discography lately. 216.38.143.2 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Janet Jackson discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259165.xml?year=2001
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/page-259165.xml?year=2001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhythm Nation 20 million copies

Rhythm Nation has sold 20 million copies worldwide to this date according to Entertainment Weekly - http://www.ew.com/article/2014/09/19/janet-jackson-rhythm-nation-1814-25th-anniversary. I expect administrators to update this change as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It didn't sold that much. Seems like a Woozle effect, and created by Wikipedia itself. Fans became to exaggerate her sales, and put here that this album has sold 20 millions worldwide, even though not even 10 million certified copies it has, and the media started to say that in fact it sold 20 million copies.--88marcus (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 88marcus. Although Entertainment Weekly is a reliable source, the 20 million figure is unreal. Media generally put the sales for 14 million, that are realistic. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 23:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

88marcus, I can say the same thing about Immaculate collection, Madonna fans started feeling desperate and typed 30 million copies without any source, then some media source saw that and made link out of it, so now according to your criteria, are you going to change it to 20 million copies because Immaculate collection's certified sales total at 20 million copies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, 14 million copies figure has been coming from 1980s. I think, there's no harm in updating the sales to 20 million in year of 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Encoreameya, how can the Rhythm Nation have sold 20 million copies when the worldwide certified sales for it are well under 7 million? Even the 14 million is completely overblown for that album based on its available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, then how Immaculate collection has sold 30 million copies when it has only has 20 million certified units? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Mayority of the cases, you cannot reference an album with another album. We're talking about Rhythm Nation 1814 which is from 1989 but her certifications are too low to claim a big figure like 20 million and said that is "one of the best-selling worldwide". The album didn't charted pretty well outside english speaker countries (doesn't appears in best-selling albums by country) and doesn't appears in monthly/weekly charts through any other years that an actual album within best-selling generally appears. I think for example if there is a reference from similar year-release albums with Rhythm Nation 1814 as Like a Prayer (that has more certified units) with 20 million copies, I think also that is not too realistic. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, Rhythm nation was best selling album of 1990 in US. One can easily assume it has sold 10 million copies in US as most albums of 1980s and 1990s who topped the year end chart were selling above 10 million mark. Second, this album was as successful as Janet album was, so if writers like you can accept that it has sold 20 million copies, I think there's no harm in accepting this album has sold that many copies as well. Like a prayer failed to sell copies in biggest market of music which is US. And Rhythm nation has more sales unit known to world than LAP. Another fact that Janet is most undercertified singer, for example, Janet album has sold 7.9 million copies if you combine the sales of Soundscan and BMG while it is certified only 6x platinum by RIAA, All for you album has sold 3,207,000 copies if you combine the sales of Soundscan and BMG while it is certified only 2x platinum by RIAA, Design of a decade has sold 3,902,000 copies if you combine sales of Soundscan and BMG while it is certified only 2x platinum by RIAA. Janet Jackson and Dream street albums are still not certified, Control was last certified in 1989 and Rhythm nation in 1992. So you can assume how much her sales are undercertified in US and worldwide. Hence I have no problem in believing Rhythm nation selling 20 million copies and it deserves to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Encoreameya, one should not base their argument on assumption. Rhythm Nation 1814 was last certified in November 1992 for 6x Platinum, that is almost 2 years after it received its 5x Platinum. Meaning, the album's sales had decreased significantly by 1990. It took another 2 years for the record company to manage to ship only one additional million units. If you're basing your assumption on sources such as this, you shouldn't. That source incorrectly claims 8.5 million by 1989, when in fact, the album was only certified 3x Platinum by February 1990. And I'm not sure why you constantly try to bring up albums by Madonna which are completely unrelated to this discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, you're contradicting many Wikipedia facts and making me sound like I am doing something wrong, when in reality writers like you have accepted the information which is baseless. For example, you believe Thriller album has sold 65 million copies when you have no hard proof that it has sold that much. It has only 46 million certified units. Another fact that you're forgetting that Rhythm nation was last certified in 1992 only because after that album, Janet left A&M records and went along with Virgin records, not because it didn't sell well after 1992. It sold 1,377,000 copies according to Soundscan and I believe very few albums which released pre-Soundscan have sold that much copies. And since you're going on and on about shipments, none of us know how much Rhythm nation has been shipped to this date, hence, you're next statement is baseless as well. And why do I bring up Madonna in discussion going on here? That's only because I believe most of you who try to deflate Janet achievements are Madonna fans. You can believe she has sold 300 million records when she has only 170 million certified units while you deny believing the fact that talented person like Janet can sell 160 million records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Encoreameya, please Wikipedia:NOTFORUM. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, then change Rhythm Nation selling 14 million copies to 20 million sold or let me do that and don't interfere further. I am trying to improve this article with new updates and not to come in between them. How about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Encoreameya, the soundscan has been around since 1991, meaning Rhythm Nation 1814 has sold only 1.377 million copies from 1991 until 2009. Which is entirely in line with what I explained above, that by 1990 the sales had already decreased significantly. Some sources may claim outrageously inflated sales figures, but it doesn't mean we should implement them blindly into articles. Remember Context matters. Based on the analysis I provided above, I completely disagree with the 20 million for Rhythm Nation 1814, so I can't give my consensus to proceed with inserting such an inflated figure. The 14 million for that album, as I mentioned, is inflated enough.--Harout72 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Harout27, I think the janet. album should be changed to 14 millions too, since that there's a reliable source (an MTV ad) that says that her past three albums sold 14 millions copies each one. How can janet. sold 13 million copies out of the United States?--88marcus (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, I still say, the statement you made earlier is baseless, and this statement of yours is baseless as well. Like I said before, none of us know how much the album is shipped to this date. You cannot decide the shipments based on sales. I can say the same for Madonna's Like a virgin album, it was certified 7x platinum in 1987 and diamond in 1998, so based on your criteria, it had to sell 3 million copies no matter what, right? Then why has it sold only 574,000 copies according to Soundscan to this date? You made it very clear with your statements that you want to deflate Janet sales and inflate Madonna's sales as much as possible. Take care. Bye.

88marcus, then change sales of Like a virgin to 14 million because it has only that many certified units and Immaculate collection to 20 million as well. There's no way those albums have sold 21 and 30 million copies respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Encoreameya, we don't have to know the exact number of shipped units, however, we have enough information available to us which clearly suggests that Rhythm Nation 1814 could not even have sold anywhere 14 million units, let alone 20 million. All of my explanation are sourced and detailed, whereas all of yours are unsourced and sloppy. And stop comparing Janet Jackson to Madonna. Madonna is a global phenomenon, whereas Janet Jackson's popularity it limited to English speaking territories mainly. Provide me the source that it says Like Virgin has sold 574,000 according to Soundscan between 1991 and 1998, I'm very curious.--Harout72 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Madonna didn't sell any of her albums over 20 million, according to certifications. Forget about Central and South America, Eastern Europe etc. That market is so small that she couldn't sell all of her albums combined in more than 2 million copies there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BojanJJ (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Again... referring an album/artist completely different. We must to analyze each case separate and we're talking about Janet Jackson. I agree with Harout' point of view. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 23:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, I believe Rhythm nation has shipped 10 million copies to this date. And it is not hard to believe it has shipped another 10 million outside US. Not sourced? I can give you source of every statement I made above. Madonna might be richer than Janet but she's nowhere near popularity of Janet. That's why Janet was voted Queen of Pop by everyone and not Madonna which is another fact you people don't want to mention on Wikipedia. And whatever popularity Madonna has earned is only based on making controversies unlike Janet who is mostly respected for her originality, versatility, and hardwork. And here's your source of LAV - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_a_Virgin_(album)#Commercial_performance

Chrishonduras, Harout72 point of view has given no result and is baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, this source claims 16 million in 1993. PassenzaT (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It has sold over 14 million copies, including over nine million in the United States, 1994 PassenzaT (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

'janet.' had sold 14 million as of 1998, in 2009 was over 20 million. PassenzaT (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Haha, you guys are being ridiculous. Janet has sold 160 million records and both Janet & Rhythm nation albums have sold over 20 million copies and Control over 14 million copies; and there are dependable sources to prove it. Just because she has rivalry with Madonna, hence you don't have deflate her achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I am making change using above figure, if you have any queries then talk with me on this page or on my talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I am also updating figures of Control and Janet albums to 14 and 20 million respectively. For Control, I am using Billboard as a source. http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/6866860/janet-jackson-control-30-year-anniversary And for Janet album, I am using ABC as a source. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-01-22/janet-jackson-set-for-return-to-form/1019448 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 13:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we can doing the same for ALL ALBUMS / ARTISTS on Wikipedia. Update sales for Michael Jackson's Thriller with 110 million (or even 175 million). Like a Virgin with 25 million, True Blue with 30 million or The Immaculate Collection with 35 million just because they have REFERENCES. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 09:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, according to Michael's website, Thriller has sold 105 million copies which is not backed up by any other reliable website; Wikipedia writers have already agreed on Like a virgin selling 21 million copies, so 25 million is not far ahead; the same for Immaculate collection; she herself put 20 million for True blue on her website while Wikipedia writers already agreed on 25 million figure, what a joke!
http://www.madonna.com/news/title/true-blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 16:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Aha!! you see: the same with Janet Jackson sales and her albums. We cannot do that with albums that her certified units not reach a figures that some references give. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 17:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If you desagree with Madonna sales, why don't you go to the talk page of her articles and say that?--88marcus (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, what 'aha'? I think you misunderstood my sentences. I said that I disagree with Thriller selling 105 million copies because other than Michael's website, there're no reliable sources which says it sold that many copies. I disagree with True blue selling 25 million copies because on Madonna's website, she says that it has sold 20 million. I have no problem accepting Like a virgin has sold 25 million copies because it is not far bigger quantity than 21 million. I also agree that Immaculate collection has sold 35 million copies because it is also not far bigger quantity than 30 million. What certifications have to do with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

88marcus, I can ask the same to you because I believe you're agreeing with True blue selling 25 million copies while Madonna herself puts on her website that it sold not more than 20 million copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Encoreameya, you need to stop disrupting this talk page with your nonsensical arguments. You are refusing to get the point, that is considered disruptive. Every single editor involved including myself tried to explain to you as to why those figures you suggest for Janet Jackson's albums are inflated. The currently listed figures on Janet's discography are the closest figures available to each album's available certified sales. And yes, we look at certified sales on wikipedia. We do that to see whether the published figures are true or not. That is why Chrishonduras was mentioning the certifications. FYI, almost all sales figures for Madonna's albums at her discography are supported by more certified sales than the currently listed figures for Janet's albums.--Harout72 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Harout72, first of all, your statements are nonsensical. At every level, you failed to prove me wrong. According to your criteria, Like a virgin supposed to sell 3 million copies in between 1987 to 1998 but you failed to provide me single source which says it has sold that much. You make up your own data, you don't accept reality. And speak for yourself, not for others, that's a sign of weakness. See the writers like Dre565324 on this page, InductJanet, The Bookkeeper, IP address 204.38.4.80 on Janet Jackson talk page have disagreed deflating updates. The figures which are updated right now are outdated and deflated. Again 'we'? You're not Wikipedia owner neither administrator for me to believe everything you say. Speak for yourself. Others have mouth, they can speak for themselves, don't speak on behalf of them. More or less supported, how does it make difference? Neither of them provide 100% certifications for their sales claim. And since you want to make Wikipedia be only dependent on certified sales, then change Janet selling 100 million to 52 million, I won't bother, but also change Madonna's total to 170 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Down your tone and assume good faith. And please, leave to mention an artist (Madonna) that nothing has to be discussed here. Actually, look at this, you're arguments are nonsensical. Please read WP:OR. Don't make disruptive edits (is a warning). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 20:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Encoreameya, you are too obsessed with Janet Jackson to be able to absorb the fact how much Janet's record company has inflated those figures. Your obsession with Janet is what makes you keep coming back here and posting disrupting comments. I'm going to repeat one last time, I have provided you with detailed explanation and analysis about everything I've stated. You, on the other hand have absolutely no clue how to analyze sales figures. And this source which you provided for Like a Virgin, which according to you was supposed to be a proof that it's sold 574,000 units during Soundscan, redirects here, in other words, absolutely nowhere. That isn't the way how one provides sensible argument. Again, as stated here "Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you".--Harout72 (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Chrishonduras, down my tone? Who started? Harout72 had no need to speak for others, I gave him the reply that he deserved. And definitely I am going use Madonna's name as an example to prove how writers like you are being unjustifying towards Janet's articles. My arguments are backed up by reliable and latest sources not outdated like opponents. You're making disruptive edits and forcing others to accept updates which are outdated and unjustifying. Stop doing it. This is my first and last warning to you. Next time, you'll be reported.

Harout72, I was testing you. I purposely put that source. I knew the link was deleted. But still what happened? Don't believe what is written on Madonna's articles? I thought writers like you believe whatever which is written on Madonna's articles is far genuine than what is written on Janet's articles. Now try this source -
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/7617649/ask-billboard-madonnas-career-album-sales
It is 2016 list of Madonna top 10 best selling albums in US. Now where's that 3 million figure for Like a virgin?
By the way, I don't take advice from non-genuine people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason of the writers who revert Rhythm nation selling 20 million copies. If you're not interested in mentioning her achievements, then why you people are bothering making edits here. Go on Wikipedia pages of other singers and do whatever you like. Leave Janet's articles alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encoreameya (talk • contribs) 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Harout72: @Chrishonduras: @Binksternet: It seems that those past members are back again, some of them were blocked here, but now that is another one putting Control as 14 million copies sold, and janet. 20kk, in the albums articles, I tried to reverse many times, but he continued over and over again. What can we do?!--88marcus (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Album sales

Someone came in and altered all of Janet's numbers

She has sold: Control: WW=15 million, U.S.=5 million

Rhythm Nation 1814: WW=16-20 million, U.S.=8.5 million

Janet.: WW=20-22 million, U.S.=7.04 million Dre565324 (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to know who changed Janet's WW sales from 140 million to 100 million? This is an industry known fact that she has at least sold 140 million records and has been cited by RRHOF. Also, why are her albums so grossly understated? Control, Rhythm Nation and janet. have all sold way more than what they are showing on here. Control and Rhythm Nation have been certified 14 million WW since the 90's so who would make such a mistake? Also, the janet. album has sold well over 20 million WW and Rhythm Nation is not far behind. Either they post correct information or don't post at all.

Signed: Jeffrey Greene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.183.72 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

The Billboard 200 chart at http://www.billboard.com/artist/304191/janet-jackson/chart?sort=date&f=305 doesn't seem to include two albums, All for You and The Velvet Rope, though they appear to exist and to have charted. Can anyone explain the discrepancy? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Source info

The source information on the Janet. album says that her last three albums (Control, Rhythm Nation, and Janet.) sold over 14 MILLION each, NOT TOTAL. I REPEAT OVER 14 MILLION!!!! I hope someone reads this so they can fix it. Dre7474 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dre7474 The 14 million mark is accurate only for janet. since the other 2 albums were not that great in the charts, and has few record certifications.--88marcus (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but that makes 0 sense. Your source clear states over 14 MILLION, how can you miss that you typed the info. Don't put whatever you want down especially if it's not matching your source. And I don't care about the certification you see how off the RIAA is in the U.S. what makes you think the other countries didn't do the same. And there are many places it sold that aren't listed. And what do you mean those three albums didn't chart that well, they were mostly in the top 30s in major countries. And another thing, the source for your info was from the 90s, don't you think it grew since then. Please check your sources.

Dre7474, sign your posts/comments. All sales figures are currently supported by the most accurate sales figures. In other words, those are the closest sales figures to where the actual sales stand. 88marcus is correct, neither Control nor Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 have had as big a success as Janet both based on chart peaks and also Gold/Platinum certifications. You can ignore the certifications all you want, but they are the most accurate tools available to us to determine whether or not the given claimed figures are within the neighborhood of the real sales. The fact that the certified sales for each album are way below the listed sales figures, is enough indication that the sales figures for all albums are completely overblown by Janet Jackson's record company for promotional purposes.--Harout72 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Janet Jackson discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jW8qIpnZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mi2n.com%2Fpress.php3%3Fpress_nb%3D47877 to http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jW8qIpnZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mi2n.com%2Fpress.php3%3Fpress_nb%3D47877 to http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jW8qIpnZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mi2n.com%2Fpress.php3%3Fpress_nb%3D47877 to http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jW8qIpnZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mi2n.com%2Fpress.php3%3Fpress_nb%3D47877 to http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jW8qIpnZ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mi2n.com%2Fpress.php3%3Fpress_nb%3D47877 to http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=47877
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141024153949/http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1997/199712.pdf to http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1997/199712.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.people.com/people/janet_jackson/biography/0%2C%2C20004356_10%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140610110434/http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1996/199602.pdf to http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1996/199602.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5PkfqxTDF?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rianz.org.nz%2Frianz%2Fchart.asp to http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924015932/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/Search.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Who is trolling Janet's sales here?

Many people are providing reliable sources, and some here call them "inflated" only because they don't like them, but I see that other artists don't have any problem to have inflated numbers with questionable source (if any) and only few certifications. If Billboard Magazine claims sales of 160 million albums, Richard Branson and Virgin Records sales of "Janet" album over 20 million, who decides here that's not the truth? Branson made her the best paid artist of all time after that album for a reason, and 14 million wouldn't be a reason big enough.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BoganJJ (talk • contribs)

The album Janet has only 7.7 million certified units, which doesn't suggest that it could have sold more than 10-12 million units maximum. And Janet Jackson's overall certified sales stand at 52.2 million units, which in its turn suggests that her overall sales can't be more than 75-100 million units.--Harout72 (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

160 million units goes for records (albums, singles, videos) not only albums. Album Janet sold 8 million units in the USA alone (SoundScan / BMG Music Club). May I ask you what is the reliable source for Madonna's "Like A Virgin"? It has only 12 million units certified and most Diamond albums in America were sold in around 7 million, not 10. There was a claim in the 90s that "Like A Virgin" sold 15 million copies. Where did the rest come from? From Mars? It's not even her record label claim. Wikipedia claims 21 million without any reliable source and certifications. It's a made-up number. We need to have the same rules for all artists. What's reliable for Madonna, should be reliable for Janet too.

Please sign your comments. I don't know why you're talking about Madonna here, but if you desagree with the claim sales in her article, you can say that in the Talk page. Like a Virgin has 15 million in certified sales, not 12, but she's more an worldwide seller than Janet, there's no info for her Japan sales and certifications even though it peaked #2, in Brazil, reliable magazines like Veja has a claim that her album sold around 500,000 in the country. Mexico, Argentina and most latin countries where she's a success have no data too, same with Asian countries...--88marcus (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It is very interesting that both User:Encoreameya and User:BojanJJ chose to discuss Madonna's sales for Like a Virgin, which is completely unrelated to Janet Jackson's sales. If Encoreameya has decided to come back by creating another account, that is Sock puppetry.--Harout72 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about Madonna because it's the best example of double standards, and what's reliable for Madonna, should be reliable for Janet too. And that's not the case. You're allowing Madonna's "inflated" numbers, not Janet's. To say that Madonna is "more an worldwide seller than Janet" means nothing without certifications and reliable sources.

"Janet" has 2,040,000 certified units outside the USA, and 8 million units sold in the USA. That's 10 million. "Like A Virgin" has 4,070,000 certified units outside the USA and 10 million certified units in the USA (but that goes for shipment, not sales, unlike in Janet's case). That's 14 million at best, but it's probably few million less because the most Diamond albums in the USA are sold in around 7 million copies. No one can prove that "Like A Virgin " sold over 21 million copies, and that's the fact. In fact, no one can prove that "Like A Virgin" sold even 14 million because we didn't have SoundScan in the 80s and we are talking about shipments here, which is very manipulative.

Southern, Central America and Eastern Europe are very small market and completely irrelevant. The USA and Japan make over 50% of global music market, and Janet is big in both countries. --BojanJJ (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2017 (CET)

The thing is right! Janet. 8 million in certified sales, and Madonna 14 million. Each one has more 6 millions from other countries and possible not certified records, why do you want to put 12 million more for Janet?! Do you think is correct to put 26 million copies to Like a Virgin?!--88marcus (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Certified sales for "Janet" in the USA are not important because that album was released in the SoundScan era and we know precisely how much it sold in the USA - 8 million copies. So, we have over 10 million sales for "Janet", not 8. We don't know how much "Like A Virgin" sold in the USA, we have 10 million certified units for shipment, not sales. Sales are always lower than shipment for several million copies. Take Mariah Carey albums as example: her Diamond albums are sold around 7 million copies, not 10. The same goes for all artists. My question is simple: why do we have double standards here? Why is okay to have "inflated" numbers for Madonna and not for Janet? Can we just write 14 million for "Like A Virgin" and 10 for "Janet" and avoid this mess. Please answer. --BojanJJ (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2017 (CET)

8 million in the US and close to 2 million certified units from abroad for Janet album, doesn't translate to 20 million in sales as you've changed it to in this edit. That cannot translate to more than 12-14 million in sales.--Harout72 (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

But Madonna's 14 million certified units (which is probably 11 million in sales) translate to 21 million? Why do we have different rules for different artsts? --BojanJJ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2017 (CET)

Like a Virgin album's discussion isn't for here, I'm not sure what the lowest available claim for that album is, but the 21 million claim is supported by 67% certified sales or 14.1 million certified sales. Having said the 14 million claim for the album Janet is supported by 55% certified sales or 7.7 million certified units. Clearly, Like a Virgin is supported by more certified sales, so I'm not sure why this is confusing.--Harout72 (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't have 10 millions for Janet. in USA, it came from nothing. The album was not certified Diamond by RIAA, like Mariah albums (which were sold in much more clubs than the Janet albums, so not included in Soundscan numbers too). Why do you want to increase this album in 12 million copies? There's no double standards here, we add 6 million copies to each of them, even though Madonna is far more successful, since the album charted better than the Janet one.--88marcus (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes we have 10 million for "Janet". Use calculator. 8 million sold in the USA and over 2 million certified units abroad. SoundScan is important, not certifications. And Mariah wasn't selling better in clubs than Janet. Madonna's inflated numbers are approved, Janet's aren't. Why? That's all I wanna know, cause we have the same data and there's no way you can prove that Madonna's numbers aren't inflated. I don't need your fake numbers and guesswork. We have the facts here and I just want to know why do we have double standards? --BojanJJ (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2017 (CET)

No we don't have. You should read this article about the sales of the album in clubs link. The album is only elegible to 7 platinum award, maybe 8 for shipments. You, Janet fans, came with this idea of 10 millions, only to inflated her sales more than her record company.

MJD is not a reliable source. He can't know how much of that, or any album, was shipped. He's just a random guy, like you and me. And I don't even care about certifications in the SoundScan era. It's pointless. I didn't even mention that. --BojanJJ (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2017 (CET)

Here comes the trio of Virgin studio albums. What is safe to say is that those albums were never part of Columbia House catalog as they do not even have an ID on it. Janet. sold 4,3 million units as per Soundscan in 1993, 1,6 million in 1994 and 1,1 million since. It was up to about 5,4 million copies scanned and with many more copies shipped when certified 6xP. With BMG sales likely happening in 1993 fall / during 1994 as it was a special offer due to popular demand, the album crossed 7 million overall copies by mid-1995, when Virgin dropped out of BMG Club. As they completely stopped that contract, they were very unlikely to keep related bills at their disposal, naturally archiving them. With this assumption in mind, Janet. became eligible for a 7xPlatinum award quite recently, while by now majors hardly care about updating their artists anymore. Of course, if all bills were fully audited tomorrow, the album would end up 8xP.

--88marcus (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I said that we have 10 million globally, not in the USA. And what you said only proves double standards. Nobody's buying that fairy-tale that "Like A Virgin" sold over 20 million copies, there's no evidence for that, yet, it's on Wikipedia for some weird reason. Why? How you can add 7 million to that album out of nowhere, but you can't to "Janet"? --BojanJJ (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2017 (CET)

Claimed sales

Why is forbidden to post claimed sales for Janet, while it's allowed for other artists? For instance, it's allowed to post a claim that Madonna's "Like A Prayer" sold 15 million worldwide, while we have less than 9 million certified units, and at the same time we have over 10 million certified units for "Janet" and "Rhythm Nation 1814" but we can't post claimed figures and they are, according to someone's will here, sold less than "Like A Prayer", which is not the truth, obviously. --BojanJJ (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2017 (CET)

Is a different topic and unrelated with Janet Jackson. There is previous consensus that are inflated figures supported by several users. The biggest market for Jackson is United States and those albums don't sell even pretty well outside. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 22:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, BojanJJ said the truth. Madonna's "Like A Prayer" is a good example. Wikipedia claim that "Like A Prayer" sold over 15 million and nobody's yelling that "Like A Prayer" is overestimated. At the same time Janet sold "Rhythm Nation 1814" in the USA alone more than Madonna "Like A Prayer" globally, and some people here will always be denying that it sold over 14 million. Or take for example Mariah's "Daydream". Wikipedia claims that it sold over 25 million copies worldwide, but we have 14 million copies certified, and at the same time Wikipedia claims that "Janet" didn't sell 20 million with over 10 million copies certified. It has no logic. You added out of nowhere 11 million to "Daydream", 6 million to "Like A Prayer" and "only" 4 million to album "Janet". It's insane and I understand frustration of some people here. It's also bad for Wikipedia's reputation, which is already pretty bad when it comes to sales and music overall. Whenever someone mention Wikipedia as the source for sales, everybody laughs. --TheGuest (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2017 (CET)

Madonna and Mariah are more global acts thant Janet, but you're right about Mariah sales, I put Daydream with 20 million worldwide now. Madonna's Like a prayer certification table are missing Japan and Mexico, where the album sold more than 500,000 (in each one). So, the album would have 10 million in certified sales. This articles about Like a prayer and janet. sales, are the more accurate possibe, if you like: link LP, . link J.--88marcus (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with 88marcus. Even, if they are small markets, Madonna regularly sold pretty well in all regions and cumulatively, are strong sales. The same for Mariah for example in Asia region. With Janet, is hard to read a success outside English countries and especially United States (her biggest success was actually just the 80's and 90's), in news, certifications etc. Also, they have constant charted albums outside the original year of release, like The Immaculate Collection in 1993 (US) or 2006 (UK). So, they're reasons and the reliables sources and general accuracy that they have with the certifications/sales. But please, don't follow with this topic. We're talking about Janet Jackson and there is a clear consensus about her general sales and specific figures for her albums. Don't use other accounts. Don't be disruptive. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mention The Immaculate Collection, even a though overestimated numbers for that album are on Wikipedia too. I mentioned "Like A Prayer" which has less certified units globally than album "Rhythm Nation 1814" or "Janet", including SoundScan, yet, according to Wikipedia "Like A Prayer" miraculously sold better. And yes, "Control", "Rhythm Nation 1814" and "Design of a Decade" were all in Columbia club too. Only albums released for Virgin weren't. --TheGuest (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2017 (CET)

You are only guessing, Wikipedia is not a place for that. There's no any evidence for your claims. Janet had stadium shows in 5 continents (Europe, North America, Asia, Oceania and Africa). Janet is much bigger in South Africa and Asia than Madonna. Madonna never had concerts in Africa, while Janet had 5, including 3 sold-out at their largest stadiums. In New Zealand Madonna had shows only recently in small arena, Janet had stadiums in that country too. After all, Janet got $120 million from contract deals in the 90s for 5 albums, Madonna $60 million for 7. She became the highest paid artist twice during her career for a reason. You get paid what you're worth, and I'll always believe that numbers coming from those who paid her that much are closer to the truth than numbers coming from some wannabe chart experts. There's no excuse for having record label claims for other artists and not for Janet. It's very, very wrong and you're not offering any reasonable explanation. Wikipedia relies on references and reliable sources, not our guesswork and opinion. Not to mention that you are using contradictory references. For instance, the source for "Janet" album says that Janet has sold each of her past three albums in 14 million, and you're using that source as valid only for album "Janet" and not for "Control" and "Rhythm Nation 1814". There's no explanation how that source can be reliable only for one album and not for other two. You are using sources arbitrarily in order to manipulate and downgrade Janet. --TheGuest (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2017 (CET)

References

Janet 14kk is inflated yet. Like a prayer had better peaks than her, almost #1 in all around the world (see the LP article). About the things you said:

• "Janet is much bigger in South Africa and Asia than Madonna." No she's not. How could this be possible?! In Japan she sold much more than Janet. (Madonna 6,45kk in certified sales and Janet 1.6kk).
• "Madonna never had concerts in Africa" She doesn't want, and how many copies came from Africa?! 50,000??
• "In New Zealand Madonna had shows only recently in small arena, Janet had stadiums in that country too." All Madonna albums have certifications there, and her peak positions and total sales are better than Janet there too. (Madonna 417k, Janet less than 100,000) All Madonna tours after the 2000s have more than 100,000,000 at box office, Janet not even near of that.
• "After all, Janet got $120 million from contract deals in the 90s for 5 albums, Madonna $60 million for 7." So?! Her contract was bigger than Michael Jackson too, and she sold more than he?! Robbie Williams had a simmiliar contract with Virgin (same 80kk dolars) too, and his previous albums sold around 5 million copies worldwide. She sold way more than Robbie before her contract, 10 million copies with Control and 12 million with RN, and that's the numbers that made Virgin have an interest in her.--88marcus (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Janet is and always will be bigger in Asia. Of course, Madonna sold more albums there when she had 4 x more releases than Janet, but that doesn't mean she's bigger. Janet had 8 sold out shows in Tokyo Dome. Only Mariah had more. One more. Janet also holds the record for fastest sell-out of Tokyo Dome. "Doesn't Really Matter" was the best selling foreign single in Japan in 2000. "All For You" was the best selling foreign single in Japan in 2001. "All For You" album was the best selling foreign album in Japan in 2001. "Just A Little While" was the second best selling foreign single in Japan in 2004. And so on, and so on... And we have 1.8kk certified units for Japan.

• Janet first became highest paid artist before she released album "Janet", for Virgin. Virgin wouldn't make her the highest paid artist after that album again if it sold 14 million. That has no sense. And Richard Branson definitely knows better how much it sold than you and me.
• Janet was bigger touring act than Madonna, until 2004. All Janet's tours from the 90s, were much bigger in gross and attendance than any Madonna tour until 2004.
• There's no way that "Like A Prayer" sold more globally than "Rhythm Nation 1814" and "Janet". It's not important in how many countries you're charting, but in which countries. It's irrelevant for sales did you sell 8 million copies in the USA or in 100 countries. 8 million is 8 million.
• There are no reliable sources for Madonna's global sales on Wikipedia. Only record company claims that are heavily inflated.
• Album "Janet" is the best selling dance album of the 90s, according to The Guinness World Records. It's not that we can trust them for sales, but you have decided to trust them when it comes to Madonna. So how come that other dance albums from the 90s sold better than "Janet" according to Wikipedia when it's the best selling dance album according to The Guinness World Records?

The main question here is, where are the facts for both artists? Janet's numbers are your assumptions, not facts nor record label claims, and Madonna's numbers are record label claims. So you're allowing Madonna's and Mariah's fictional record label claims, that can't be proven, to be posted as facts, and you're not allowing those claims on Janet's pages. And that's the main problem. It's not your job to guess or decide who sold more in countries for which we don't have any data. --TheGuest (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2017 (CET)

This discussion lost the main focus that is Janet Jackson. Wikipedia is not a forum, please avoid to mention superfluous comments that aren't any related with Janet Jackson discography, like other artists including Madonna or Mariah Carey. With your obsessive Madonna topic, you can discuss it in her articles but assume good faith please. AND don't use sock accounts and/or make disruptive editions. By the way, I have to say to the other people that came from websites like YouTube or pop forums about "Janet Jackson" in "Wikipedia" don't come here with the same topic, please. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 09:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The main focus should be my question, but no one can give any logical and reasonable answer, which is the answer as well. In order to expose the manipulation with sources and data on Janet's pages, the one has to use other artists as examples. What's acceptable source for other artists (despite the lack of available certifications to back those claims) should be acceptable source for Janet too. Stop making your own assumptions and ignoring reliable sources. Sooner or later someone else and less biased will be taking care about Janet's pages, but until then we won't remain quiet about it.--TheGuest (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2017 (CET)

"We"? What group do you represent? Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't pretend anything and always assume good faith, but I strong believe that you're violating some points of WP:DWIP. If you're actually came from pop forums that discuss the articles and sales of Janet Jackson in Wikipedia (or overall) or you're the user that made some YouTube videos against users from Wikipedia like me, please stop to do that here. We ask accuracy and its pretty clear that Janet Jackson' sales are promotional and inflated. And not, as editors I know that they take care about sales from other artists beyond fanaticism, if not, lets inflate for example the sales for Like a Virgin to 25 million just because has "reliable sources". Thriller with 100, 110 or 120 millions just because this album has those sources. The same for overall records or for specifics albums of artists like Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, etc. We based in the same guideline. Trust me, I'm a fan of some artists like Shakira but beyond that I will not accept some exaggerate claims for her overall records like 125 millions, that is fake figure. The same for the Latina singer Thalía, that we donwngrade to 25 million records because 40 million was promotional. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 19:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Some sources

You probably won't care, but I think that "Control" and "Rhythm Nation 1814" sales should be corrected from 10 and 12 to 14 million. I'll provide sources for Control now, just in case someone is willing to do this and replace those weird numbers that we now have on Wikipedia. As someone mentioned before, we really should relay on sources not our own estimations.

--JN (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2017 (CET)