Talk:The Rolling Stones

Sales figure inconsistency with the List of best-selling music artists

Please can I ask why are we using a sales figure on this page of 250 million and providing a link to this article when the linked article clearly states that the Rolling Stones have sold 200 million records and are in the "200 million to 249 million" bracket. This makes a nonsense of Wikipedia's reliability. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

What that list says at the moment is beyond irrelevant. (Something another editor pointed out to you on your talk page almost a year ago, which you removed, along with my comments asking you to stop removing reliable sources.) The correct thing for you to do would have been to update the list article instead of being disruptive on several other pages.★Trekker (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly: I would really appreciate if you could explain why you believe it's better to remove sources and information than simply updating another page? The way you are editing right now does not seem to make sense to me. So far I have tried to get you to reply on your talk page and here, but you have instead just gone on to keep editing, this time removing the link to the list at all.★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

"I would really appreciate if you could explain" A pleasure. A search of the history of the best-selling music artists page shows that when the page was updated with the higher figure, it was subsequently removed with this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_music_artists&diff=prev&oldid=1277487259 and this explanation: "The Rolling Stones was randomly moved up last year without any talk. They only have 101 million certified units how can they sold 250 million?" Rodericksilly (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that editor's take overrides the reliable sources we have. Is the editor an expert in the area?★Trekker (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

To be honest with you I don't care that much whether the figure is 200 million or 250 million. They've clearly sold a shitload of records either way. What I DO care about is the consistency between articles on Wikipedia, because I think that matters to Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable encyclopedia. Rodericksilly (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Well the site doesn't become more reliable just because two places agree with each other, it's possible that the thing they "agree" on is incorrect. To me it seems very dubious to replace newer sources with older ones based on the judgement of one Wikipedia editor on a list. Wikipedia is itself after all not an accepted source on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Admittedly I have been away from this article for too long, apparently. And some bizarre changes have occurred. I do not understand what was meant by this edit's summary stating "that link goes straight to a Youtube channel that does not mention the Rolling Stones' sales figures". That is empirically incorrect, Rodericksilly. The link removed quite obviously/literally goes to a news story on the Nine News website. Nine News is a national news service in Australia. Using the Nine News source removal in the subsequent edit to then argue that the figure is unsourced/unsupported is a misrepresentation of what StarTrekker said and also not a good look more broadly. Even the Associated Press has said that they've sold more than 250 million and are among the best selling artists of all time.

As was pointed out by StarTrekker, it is extremely dubious to replace a newer source from RS to default on an older one based on one editor's opinion just so that pages "agree". By that logic, we should still say that Pope Francis or Charlie Watts are alive because sources exist saying so that are older than the ones reporting of their deaths. Wikipedia is indeed not an acceptable source on Wikipedia and the editor on the other page was mistaken in their edit, which does happen to us all from time to time. Pages don't have to be internally "consistent" and WP:OTHERCONTENT applies in a sense. If one page is outdated and reliable sourcing is available to update it, we should focus on updating the outdated page, not reverting the more updated page to be less updated so it's internally consistent with older information. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Eric Easton

Hi, I guess I found some time to add about this poor chap to the talk page archives. I want to highlight Eric Easton, the original financial manager for the Rolling Stones for the first couple of years of their career. Easton's benefits and legacy were intentionally obscured partly by his ex-partner in management Andrew Loog Oldham. While Oldham produced the first several studio albums and shaped the band's image and publicity, it was Easton who booked the Stones many significant touring dates, handled their profits as they rose to fame, and sought competition for his band against the Beatles' own manager Brian Epstein. Retrospectively, he is just as crucial as Oldham in aiding the Stones' initial success and worldwide fame, even as this success became too much for Easton to handle.

I assume most of you thought little about Easton, judging from the brief mentions of him in the article, and I guess us Wikipedians are mostly victim to this obscurity too. Easton's article was not created until 2020, unusually late for a figure related to a band as iconic as the Stones, after his relatives contacted us about him in an attempt to create an article (thankfully, the article got GA'd not long after). As a Stones fan I never even heard of him until late July, and realized just how many gaps of information have been filled since learning about him. Even so, while Easton's article provides very fruitful information regarding the Stones' early history, this information doesn't seem to be relayed onto relevant articles including this one. I hope this can change, and that more people in and outside Wikipedia could learn about him. Opening this section should be a good start. Carlinal (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment

new songs ~2025-40612-40 (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

What about them?★Trekker (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Steve Jordan

The present article's wording is confusing in that it claims Jordan is now a band member, whilst elsewhere he is listed as 'Associated people' (Rolling Stones template). I am not certain that the former is the case, but either way the confused wording needs addressing - preferably with a reliable source to satisfy the curious. Thanks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Jordan is not a member, to be a full member of the Stones band is to be a shareholder in it, which he is not. Jordan is a session and touring musician hired by the band.★Trekker (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the “Band members” section, just noting that although I disambiguated Jordan’s name I have no objection to removing it. I also notice it’s unsourced, unlike the others there. (But his having toured with the band is cited in a previous §.)—Odysseus1479 03:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

He has now been removed from the list of band members. Thank you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)