Talk:The Supremes

Edit request on 2 June 2013

In first paragraph of origins, "Diane Ross" should read "Diana Ross". 184.57.207.139 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Diane was the name that she went by in that time period. Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015

69.29.16.6 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC) ITS BOSS TENOOėĚĚěę

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015: To add to the Further Reading Section

Further Reading: Phillips, Ian. Diana Ross: Reflections. New Haven Publishing, 2015 ISBN 978-1910705100 IanPhillips1979 (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: I hesitate to add this, because it appears you have a conflict of interest and are the author of the work you're asking to add. The referencing/notes/further reading subsections of this article are already in a confusing format... Is there anything in this book that will help support the content of the article? Any new details? -- ferret (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Supremes became the first black female performers of the rock era to embrace a more feminine image"?

The article currently states, "The Supremes became the first black female performers of the rock era to embrace a more feminine image." What is this based on? I doubt that all the other black female performers of the rock era who preceded them -- some of whom were also Motown artists and would have been subject to the the company's image development policy too -- had masculine images. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Line Ups

Although very brief and short-lived, shouldn't there be an inclusion in the Line Ups section for the 2000 iteration of Diana Ross & The Supremes? Ross, Payne & Lawrence? It was an official tour and thus an official line up of the group. 110.86.19.122 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The Supremes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The Supremes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

FA criteria

I am concerned that the article does not meet the FA criteria. For example, considerable amount of content is not cited to a reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Death has a way of doing that.

"With the death of Florence Ballard in 1976 and the death of Mary Wilson on February 8, 2021, there is no longer any possible reunion of the original classic lineup." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:EF05:973B:6C1A:1714:C718:D722 (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Simply put, regardless of Ballard's death or, particularly, Wilson's death, there would not have been a reunion of the Original Supremes - as they became to be known? Ross, in particular, was always singular, even Ballard's sister denoted this. Furthermore, according to Ballard's sister, Ross was already the focal member of the Supremes, long before Gordy make his appointment. Ross was always front and center, regardless of members. Once, Gordy realized her potential, he wasted no time to milk it for all it was worth. Ross was "Supremely Bankable"; Ballard, Wilson, Terrell, Birdsong were not. Regardless of efforts, styles or time and place, Ross was the star and when she left, The Supremes were already gone when "LSTB" debuted, in October of 1972. Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The Real Fuel For Ballard's continued Depression?

Ballard's Depression was always predicated on her rape. Her misdirected anger and subsequent drinking and withdrawal were results of her bitter resentment of having been raped. Both Mary and later, Diana, admitted the distinct probability of Ballard's rape as the root of her eventual downfall. I admit that neither Gordy nor Ross did all that much to mitigate Ballard's discontentment but it was her rape that pushed her out of the group and eventual death. Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While the aforementioned is undeniable true, Ballard also lost a sibling or two? Ballard was already "Sassy" and sassy isn't a compliment. SHe was rough, rude, crude and quite common and she spoke up, regardless of application. Ballard was not unlike Nancy Wilson, Cissy Houston, Dionne Warwick, Aretha Franklin, Gladys Knight, et al. Traits which when not properly applied became demerits and ultimately, disconcerting. Ballard was, already difficult. The rape solidified the effects of the rage and fueled the rage, discontentment and ultimately, self-destruction. Ross just walked around and Wilson sought to see who would be on the "Winning Side"? Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Well of course Ross would begin start having the nasty "diva" attitude shortly after Ballard’s death, and Wilson kept trying to keep the Supremes alive because of the changing lineup from 1970-1977, as since people claimed that Ross had disrespected Ballard at her own funeral and people were asking for autographs - which was disrespectful. Either way that is disrespectful - but not actually. Ballard lost two siblings throughout her life, Roy from a car accident (in 1950s) and her brother in 1973. Gordy was actually body shaming Ballard as noted in Wilson’s book, with the quotes such as "big as a house" (actually quoted by Ross), and Gordy and Ballard went back and forth and then that ultimately caused Ballard to get kicked out as a founding member, which does not make sense at all. Gordy took bossy control over the group and used session singers instead of the actual Supremes - mostly the Andantes, and they started to use more fashioned dresses. Ross wanted Ballard out the group and I assumed throughout my life that Ross actually hated Ballard, which is possibly true because that Ross was totally pleased about Ballard leaving soon - and that happened 8 years after the group was formed. Gordy had nagged Ballard out mostly by 1966 just because she missed out in performances, which I can tell that affected Ballard's drinking or substance abuse. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 00:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Kaaren Ragland

I'd like to propose merging Kaaren Ragland into The Supremes § Post-Supremes groups. All of the sources in the other article are about the trademark dispute and lawsuit. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per nomination. This article has faced many edit warring, and I consider to just redirect it into the article because of this. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@64andtim, Sinclairian, Marybrewster, Rehsarb, Arjayay, and LongLiveMusic: I'm pinging recent editors of the Kaaren Ragland article in case anyone has an opinion on this proposed merger. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding in regards to the validity that Ragland can call herself a "Supreme", as seen by the numerous edits of this Wiki by Ms. Ragland herself.

The facts: Kaaren was a backup singer in the 1970's and 1980's for Original Supreme, Mary Wilson.

The facts: Ragland won a court case against Ms. Wilson. However, Ms. Wilson did not own the name The Supremes.

The facts, which can be supported with proper documentation: in 2011, Universal and Motown Records released a statement, via their "Supremes Final Sessions" release, that only nine women can call themselves a Supreme. Ragland was not listed, therefore she is not a Supreme.

It's really as simple as that.

I'd like to propose that the entire Wiki is deleted, as the notability of the subject is highly questionable. Marybrewster (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct. I have even placed a notability tag on her page. Basically, this user with the same name Kaaren Ragland (talk · contribs) continuously edit warred around the page with other users and got recently blocked for that, and that violated WP:COI. However, I did add a reference for the court case, but she did remove that and insisted on writing poorly unsourced material instead. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 01:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of that may be worth including in the article if it can be backed up with reliable sources, isn't WP:UNDUE, etc. I think the only question that matters when it comes to the Kaaren Ragland article is notability and whether it should be merged with this article (the result would be replacing the content of Kaaren Ragland with a redirect to a section of this article and some information would be merged into this article). That's the only proposal being discussed here. I'm not saying she is a Supreme nor would I ever claim that. Daniel Quinlan Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Basically, if she has her own group, "Sounds of the Supremes", the group isn’t big on notability, but still, we can otherwise do anything else to the article and possibly like Merge, Keep or Redirect, it’s either between those decisions. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 01:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We can instead just merge, as my reasoning stated above. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 01:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Such a suggestion is ridiculous and uninformed and clearly an idea that does a disservice to Kaaren. Her bio is full of content that has nothing to do The Supremes, a group that disbanded many years ago. Her own group the Sounds of the Supremes has been around for 30+ years. Whomever is trying to introduce such ideas is doing her a disservice and appears to have an agenda along with the cowardly characters (who fail to disclose their real identity and whom Wikipedia fails to police). Kaaren Ragland has made significant contributions to many areas of the entertainment industry of which The Supremes is a minor part. Please list all of her credits in full. B2TheShack (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)— B2TheShack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JM (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, the group is also using the Supremes name, and the court case is also listed for information, and it is not an agenda, and Ragland was also threatening to report/sue me just because I was adding sourced content. So clearly, the group has something to do with the Supremes because of the name. TheGreatestLuvofAll ( chat with me ) 23:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The Sounds of the Supremes is a well established group worldwide. The problem with your

references are that they are not going to the court case but third party references in

magazines and newspaper articles. As an editor go to the source, the actual court case. 2603:8000:9F0:8370:1082:AD22:F848:99FD (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I know that there's no point in responding to you since you are WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTGETTINGIT and WP:COI and not assuming good faith, but I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia does not do original research by looking at court cases, and does not rely on primary sources like court cases. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means it relies on secondary sources like news articles. JM (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to service Kaaren. Enough with the personal attacks and assuming bad faith. JM (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI the editor I'm replying to has been blocked as the article subject herself trying to evade a block. JM (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Support per nominator JM (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not Kaaren Ragland whom you appear to a have personal issue with, and am currently in the/middle of my business with many of my a UMG clients in London at the ILMC. Your statements are clearly made by a person who is uninformed. I do not take kindly to folks who cannot substantiate their statements. This is unprofessional. I have known Kaaren as an artist for years and her

group is well respected in the business. Unblock me. 2603:8000:9F0:8370:1082:AD22:F848:99FD (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)