Talk:Diana Ross

Contradiction

Well, I think it's still Mariah Carey who had the most of number #1 singles in the fact that she wrote all of her number one singles (except the Jackson 5's Ill Be There) Diana Ross is also a very succesfull single but remember that most of her number one singles is when she still with The Supremes... and that's why Mariah Carey win the combat... she was, is, and still always be a solo singer..

Comment: It was Diana Ross and the Supremes.... so the fact that she gained this many hits while being with a group, should be moot. Diana Ross and the Supremes was what they had been called all along since it was Diana's voice that gave the "group" their first hit and she did 99% of the lead singing from "Where Did Our Love Go" until her departure from the group seven years later. And let's face it, that wasn't a group. It was Diana Ross and the "Back-UP" Singers

This article and the Mariah Carrey article both seem to claim that their respective artists have the most #1 singles for a female

I reverted a lot of stuff that sounded like it was from VH-1 Behind the Music or something like that. If the contributor would care to offer a source for the authenticity of the "information" and also assurances that it is not copyrighted, it could be edited back in.

If you read this insertion, what I inserted within the Diana Ross article is within the Public Domain. I am not a crazy fan, or do I suscribe to revisionalism! What is being written about Carey is coming from a fan! i am not a Diana Ross fan - in any manner or form - but, I give credit where it is due! And her 18 #1 Billboard records are noted and acknowledged by Billboard - itself! August, 1964 - October 1981. Take the time to read the facts!

It is noted in the public domain for those who care to look, that diana Ross has 18 Billboard #1 singles. Carey has 17 on Billboard. It is also necessary to bring up the fact that Carey's music is heavily discounted in the record stores. This has been done to enable Carey to eventually match and surpass Ross' 18 #1s. What I have written about her discounted CD prices is also in the public domain which is how I learned of it, and then, what I have wtinessed in Tower Records and Target, to give two primary examples: The Diana Ross and The Supremes #1s - in both stores were listed at 11.99, while Carey's latest CD was listed 9.99; both CDs were not on sale...this is one of the major reasons she continues to sell. This fact has not gone unnoticed within and outside the music industry.

Correct, but 12 of Ross's 18 #1s came with The Supremes. With that in mind, would Diana still hold the title, as Mariah is a solo artist? PennyGWoods 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Carey has had more #1 singles; however, her music carries no weight, or respect within the music industry, or with the critics. This is why her music is heavily discounted in the stores. Ross' music is history: social mobility; financial mobility; political freedom, and the ascent of negroes into the mainsteam. This is Ross' contributions. This is why her music carries weight and importance. her music is everywhere: in Europe, Asia, particularly in japan, where she remains the biggest foreign femal singer; Scandinavia; South America; Canada; and, now, China! She is universal! She was asked to appear in Russia to sing, and if rumours are correct, will sing in China in the near future? Ross' voice is the voice of joy, anticipation, hope and freedom, which is why gays have embraced her music from the onset. Play Diana anywhere and you will see people listen: they may not particularly like it, but they will acknowledge it. that, my friend, is why Carey can have 100 #1s: they will not matter. Wait until her CD "Blue" is released; once again, all will take notice. Listen to her version of "What A Diff'rnce A Day Makes." Listen to the voice!!!!!!!!!!

According to the Billboards and Guiness World Records Diana Ross is credited as having 18 # 1 singles and Mariah Carey is credited as having 17, however according to the same sources Diana Ross scored 12 of her number one hits with the supremes which defaults her from the category of the most #1 singles for a solo act. Meaning that as a solo artist Dianna Ross had only 6 # one singles and as a solo artist Mariah has only 17. Since the twelve do not belong soley to Diana the cannot be credited as her's and her's alone. I hope that clears this up. PhoenixPrince 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If I might be allowed to add the following information? If one takes into an account that Ross has had other records go to number one outside of the United States, Ross has superseeded the Billboard number 1s.

In 1971, she went to number one with "I'm Still Waiting" for 4 weeks. In 1986, she went to number one in England with "Chain Reaction" for 3-4 weeks. She went to number one in the United States in 1986? with "We Are The World." In 1988?, she went to number one in Japan with "If We Hold On Together" for 12 weeks. Therefore, on an absolute count, she has had 21 number ones, plus sang on another number one record as one of many.

If a singer's greatness seems to be based on the absolute number of number ones, Ross stands as the most successful...particularly, if you take into account the time frame. Carey has had only 17 Billboard Number Ones not 18 as has Ross. This lie is perpetuated even on here. What I just written is in the Public Domain and should be noted on this site as part of her Bio. EDJR22:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain the numbers in question only count American Billboard number-ones. There may be other female artists with a higher grand combined total of international number-ones. Let's not turn this into a competition: let's just have a well-written, professional article. --FuriousFreddy 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hit singles" --> "Singles"

Is it possible to get a full list of Diana Ross solo singles? --b. Touch 17:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Birth Name

If the name on her birth certificate is in fact, "Diana", shouldn't that be listed instead of "Diane"?

The article explains that "Diana" appearing on her birth sertificate was a clerical error. --FuriousFreddy 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mahogany

There's some errors in the Mahogany section... whoever was editing that part, it looks like you left out some words or something. Rico

Compliance issues

First of all, no-one has bothered to back of the submitted information with any references. For those of you that this concerns, please have a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Second, right now parts of it looks like it's been copied out of some women's magazine or the "We love Diana Ross and hate the rest of the Supremes" weekly. I'm particularily discontented with the slanderous tone of parts of this article that concerns Mary Wilson. For those of you that this concerns, have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View (in addition to the aforementioned page) as fast as possible or I'll just either cut it down to something very short or just have it removed. - Chsf 23:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The constant changes in Diana's page

I wonder why every time this page gets edited, somebody comes back and adds in biased words to the article. It just throws everything off. I had a section for not only the Supremes but also the confusion with Diana discovering the Jackson 5, I thought that was important to this article. I know what some of y'all are gonna say: "why would you put it there since that page (Jackson 5's) already discusses it?" I'll tell you why because it caught headlines not only for the Jacksons but for Diana as well. She was the one who introduced them to national audiences but she didn't discover the Jacksons, we all know that. I thought that should've been included. Why would you put Diana's page in the Michael Jackson category if this wasn't so? Or at least link her to the Jackson 5 page? If you feel it's not that important, then delete Michael's name from the categories down there then. Also what's with "the diva ascends" and all that junk? Sure, in Wikipedia, you can edit anything but it doesn't mean you should go back and forth with it. I changed other Supremes' pages and because of this. I also felt it was important to discuss the controversies that Diana faced. These things are as important as discussing her career, is it not? If not, let me know. -- BrothaTimothy 8:05

I think the problem is this, Brotha Timothy...

Someone's "tone" is not objective and keeps portraying Diana Ross in a negative manner. There is a way to correctly address all aspects of her career WITHOUT intentionally portraying her in a negative manner. For example, that Jackson 5 crap that someone wrote here made it look like it was ALL DIANA ROSS' IDEA, when we all know that Motown, Berry Gordy and Suzanne de Passe ASKED HER to present them. It was a great marketing strategy that paid off...and NOBODY except someone with an ax to grind AGAINST Diana Ross would give a damn about it. And far be it for a struggling act to get a big boost from an established star by being connected with them, which was what Gordy's team came up with. I'm glad it keeps getting deleted..or whomever is writing it, your wording could be more objective. I also like the part about Streisand and Franklin not having 18 #1s. That's a big achievement when those ladies and Ross are the "Big 3" from their generation and, again, it's DIANA ROSS' page...not anyone else. So Ross' achievements DESERVE to be highlighted. Keep the writing objective. PS- to user: Chsf, you can cut down whatever you want, but Diana Ross fans will add it back IF it ain't telling what it should in a proper fashion. If you're not a fan, then don't come back to the page. And if it sounds like it's coming from a "women's weekly", it's supposed to, it a PAGE ABOUT DIANA ROSS, and nobody hates the Supremes. How ridiculous is that? The parts about Mary Wilson's ulterior motives during Motown 25 came from MISS MARY WILSON's BOOK. Go read it. Then you'll understand why her and Miss Birdsong's mics were turned up higher than Miss Ross'. If you dislike Diana Ross THAT MUCH, then don't trouble yourself by visiting the page. It's just that simple.Thomaslewis37 03:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

13 edits and counting. Let us know when you are done, okies? ^_^ - Chsf 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you don't like the page,.......Thomaslewis37 16:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, little one, unless you start citing your sources and practise what you preach - which includes maintaining an as close as possible objective point of view and reading what other people are saying - then frankly we have nothing to discuss. And your assumptions amuse me; deductive skills do not seem to be your forte, Sherlock. ^_~ - Chsf 00:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

and still you keep coming back. What? Gay clubs closed or your man left you for spending too much time trying to instigate computer wars with complete strangers? And it's Mr. Sherlock to you...

"Motherf**** idiot"

Since I think comments have already been made about the neutrality/lack of formality in the language, I won't deal with that. But I will deal with the "totally objective" commentary about her in contrast to I guess her son or her son's boyfriend or whatever.

I'm gay and I can't stand this no talent, self aggrandazing, vain, spotlight-stealing screwed-her-way-to-the-top BEYOTCH from hell, so please stop with the gay crap, okay?? thanks!