Please add any details of worldwide best selling singles. Original list is from several sources. BandAid's "Do They Know It's Christmas?" reported on many news sites as selling 50 million, but as Elton John's "Candle In The Wind" is regarded as best selling single of all time, have used the next highest found.

Anyone with the GBR 2007 who can confirm that sales of 50m are mentioned?

-- I checked the 2007 edition and it says: Bring Crosby's "White Christmas" is the biggest selling single of all time selling 50 million (estimate). It also says that Elton John's "Candle In The Wind 1997" is the biggest selling single 'since records began' selling 33 million. 60.234.242.196 07:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come "Candle In The Wind 1997" is under a section titled "At least 35 million"? Are we assuming it sold another 2 million or so since the publication of GBR 2007? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article needs some MAJOR cleaning up. There's not even one Mariah single on there, and only one Madonna! And not only that, but there is no source for almost all these claims posted...Ayumi4u 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could we have more literate sequencing by last name? It is so illiterate in this computer world to sequence by de foist leder. And maybe someone could create a Contents box at the top of this page. George Slivinsky 07:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Another One Bites the Dust"? 7-8 million copies sold. 82.141.159.112 21:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Rhapsody ? --89.239.145.5 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IFPI Digital Music Report 2008 specifified on pg 06 (Digital Music Sales in 2007) a list of 10 biggest digital singles, beginning with "Girlfriend" by Avril Lavigne at 7.3 million units. Next on the list, "Flavor Öf Life" - Utada Hikaru (7.2 million units) is then discussed on pg 09 (Japan – An International Showcase in Mobile Music) where it specifies, "The song was first released as a mastertone to tie in with the launch of popular TV drama series Hana Yori Dango 2. Additional digital products, such as ringvideos, ringback tones and mastertones were released in the following weeks, helping the single to sell over two million digital units in total" Therefore actual single sales are 2m only. Therefore as these are inclusive of ringtones, cannot be used. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA (link)specifies she had certifications for 30m shipped in the US. Fansite says 48m, therefore this fansite is not reliable, if even the basic fact is not correct. so removing. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the facts are correct on lindaronstadt.de RIAA certifications are not synonymical for total sales. The informations on lindaronstadt.de are the complete record sales in addition of certified and non-certified of all Linda Ronstadt recordings. According to Warner Bros. Linda Ronstadt sold more than 100 million albums and Blue Bayou sold more than 8 millin copies, thats a fact, but Wikipedia paints his own world, deleting facts they don´t like...;(

PS: RIAA certifications for Linda Ronstadt are old, read this page http://lindaronstadt.de/facts.htm and you will be well-informed. One Example: artists get 1 platinum for 1 million sales, but also for 1900.000 sales. The RIAA gets no more sales-information from Linda Ronstadt´s managment and record label.

Looked at the link and not well informed at all. RIAA do not deal in sales, but deal in shipments. Most of what was said above is assumption and opinion. It is correct that RIAA certifications do not match actual shipments, but it is not correct that they are out by 60% as the figures quoted mention. The link provided is also does not provide any new information, and cannot distinguish the basic concept of shipments vs sales. "If" Warner Bros. stated that Blue Bayou sold 8 million, then that is the required reference. I refer you to one organisation that is official, and does not show Blue Bayou on their resarched list of best selling singles. United World Charts - Top Selling Singles of Alltime. I refer you to the top selling singles of 1977 United World Chart - Top Selling Singles of 1977 which this song does not even feature. I refer you to an alternative researched list TSORT INFO - Songs of 1977 which is top 100 songs of 1977, still no Blue Bayou. I even refer you to Linda Ronstadt where the references it "says" state she has sold 45m in US, only this link does, the others state 50m - 80m worldwide. So, on all accounts this page is so dubious as being factual. Therefore unless a verified source can be found i.e. from Warner, from Linda, from a news report, this should not be used as burden of proof has not been reached as required by WP:V. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the following songs of shakira must be included- 1.Hips Don't Lie - Shakira feat. Wyclef Jean-9.845.000 points 2.Whenever Wherever - Shakira-8.541.000 points 3.La Tortura - Shakira feat. Alejandro Sanz-5.568.000 points 4.Underneath Your Clothes - Shakira-5.328.000 points

a few days ago all these songs where included but suddenly i find they have been removed.why?Mrinmayworld (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because as per your figures, these are "points" not sales. According to UWC, points are made up of 49% of sales, so to get sales ou would have to halve these figures - meaning none sold over 5 million copies. 60.234.242.196 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever's been adding the madonna singles, please add references for them. 80.244.74.178 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hung up is one of madonna best selling tracks ever selling at least five million copies. I think it should be added as well

Does it seem odd that the single "Me Against the Music" is listed twice, once with Madonna's name, and once with Britney Spears? And they are both associated with different numbers...

... is supposed to have sold 20 million copies, accordingto the Melbourne Herald Sun[1]. Seems a bit much, even though it was obviously a big hit. I'll let others decide if it is worth including or not. Fram (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song is listed twice, both being recorded by Cher, but selling 5 and 9 million units. Which is it? --Paploo (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe "Karma Chameleon" is nowhere on the list. That's song was extemely popular like in 1983/1984 and a major international hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the cited source carefully, the sales figures being quoted in Wiki discographies and lists are sourced to a claim buried in an avalanche of information compiled by the unofficial site TSORT. TSORT is knowingly misleading its readers by coupling the sales figure with the term "Global", instead of the source. There is no link to the source of these "Global" figures, but several clicks will take you to a page on the TSORT site where the source is revealed:

"Global—The claimed sales for a number of singles as reported in Wikipedia. Such lists are usually inaccurate and this one is certainly incomplete.

Entries under this tag should be treated with some caution and certainly not used to justify definitive statements. As an example quoting one of the "Global" sales figures in a Wikipedia article would be wrong. As described (here) all artists exaggerate their "worldwide sales figures", some worse than others." {"(here)" is a dead link on the TSORT site.}

In other words, by citing TSORT for this information in Wikipedia, we are ultimately citing ourselves. TSORT cites Wiki for the information, and Wiki cites TSORT for the same information. This is no chicken-and-egg mystery, this is deception. Where did we get this information in the first place? Why wouldn't TSORT give the original source of the claims? Presumably because Wikipedia didn't give one in the version cited by TSORT. And if Wikipedia had given a legitimate source, then why don't all the Wikipedia articles cite that same source, instead of the TSORT citation of Wiki? Beyond that, TSORT itself is casting aspersions to the very information we are citing them for here at Wiki, and for the very reason that they acknowledge Wikipedia is inaccurate for including such sources!

TSORT, as an unofficial compiler of non-original research, is tainting their figures by including them in their computations. By including them alongside presumably citable chart figures in their chart information boxes with no qualifier, and by giving misleading information there, TSORT is irresponsibly implying that all these figures have an equal amount of credibility. It is only several pages away that you find TSORT's disclaimer about this particular info.

In light of this fact, Wikipedia MUST NOT CITE TSORT for sales claims. If there is a verifiable and legitimate third-party source for the claim, it would be more informative and direct for a reader/researcher on Wikipedia for a Wiki editor to cite that third party, and not TSORT.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have had a previous exchange of communication with a representative from TSORT with regard to this issue. Understandably it is in this individual's interest to promote that site, and they took issue with my stance. As I said at that time, I personally find the TSORT site to be a creative endeavor and, as someone who enjoys popular music, I recommend it for its entertainment value. However, an understanding of the way they arrive at their own rankings shows that it is highly unscientific in that each entry does not have all the same variables available to the compilers. Given this issue, as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot recommend it for its legitimacy, and will not accept it as a citable source. Do not misinterpret any of this, my affiliation with Wikipedia is not such that I have some "us vs. them" loyalty. This is purely about the accuracy of the information in question, based on the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the source, which in this instance is indeterminate.

As an editor, I have never had a problem with things like "(Musician X) was one of the most successful artists of the (decade)," or "(Song X) was one of the biggest hits of the year" and other reasonable but unsourced statements I have noticed other sticklers slapping cite tags on, when accurate discography data and common sense support them. But that raw data itself is a completely different thing. A number is either accurate or it is inaccurate. And the disparity between the numbers we're discussing here is in the hundreds of millions. The only purpose a number has is to be compared to other numbers. What can we possibly learn or convey by comparing numbers if we don't know if any of them are accurate? The only thing such numbers gauge is the relative audacity of PR people. Currently Wikipedia and TSORT are complicit in reporting vastly inaccurate numbers, and in so doing we are dulling the impact and indeed aspersing the veracity of any accurate numbers which may have inadvertently found their way to these pages and remained.

If TSORT were to provide live links to the source of the information they use in each instance where that information is noted, and desisted in using information they know is suspect at best and artificially inflated at worst, it could become an indispensable resource as a central clearinghouse of accurate information. (Though as a responsible editor I would ultimately cite the original source.)

TSORT themselves find the data in question dubious, yet they use it anyway. Wikipedia must hold itself to a higher standard than TSORT, even if (or should I say especially when) the information TSORT provides was found by them in a previous, uncited version of a Wikipedia article. Abrazame (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]