Talk:The Supremes/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

A lot of this article is point of view. You can't say anyone is responsible for any kind of trend or change and then source it with an opinion from Rolling Stones. For every claim of how the Supremes broke barriers there really is no back up in the sources, it's just someone's opinion. Perhaps it would be better just to state FACTS and leave the social aspects to blogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.79.213 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone Magazine is considered a viable source and therefore can be quoted. The racial barriers broken down by The Supremes, and Motown, in general, has been noted within the "Public Domain."

Why is it always necessary to read the crap posted by some ribald fan who always seems more interested in the wigs, gowns, heels and so-called "bitchy demeanor" instead of the artistic contributions of The Supremes?

Expletive included

Someone has put two expletives into this article in the section "The New Supremes". I'm sure they don't belong there.

I read the section; I don't see janything. Perhaps it was already removed? --FuriousFreddy 18:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OOPs, sorry. Yeah I removed the expletives but neglected to read this page until today. The strange thing about it was that on the edit page the expletives didn't show up at all but they did appear on the article. The words appeared to have been encoded in the chart position in parentheses after the song title up a ldder to the roof. I'm not sure what the encoding might have been but I just copied the phrase to a plain text editor and copied it back and it deleted the expletives. 12:37 pm 29 March 2005

"Let Me Go the Right Way"

Florence Ballard sings lead on the studio version of "Let Me Go the Right Way." Ross|Diane Ross]]-led version is a live recording from a Motortown Revue performance; the single mix of "Let Me Go The Right Way" was recorded before the Motown artists left for the tour.

See review of song at allmusic.com [1]:

I have copies of both versions; the studio version is the one that was released as the single.

--User:B Touch 19:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wait. Maybe this IS Diane Ross singing this. According to Motown, "Buttered Popcorn" is the only single to feature Ballard, so I'll just take the attribtuion out for now. --b. Touch 06:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Supremes/Primettes name

The Supremes only recorded one single as The Primettes: "Tears of Sorrow" (with its b-side being "Pretty Baby."). This record was recorded for Lupine in 1960; the four girls signed with Motown on January 15, 1961 as the Supremes. The name change occured a few days before their signing (at Berry Gordy's behest) and before any of their records were released. The first Motown single the girls put out, "I Want a Guy" (recorded in late 1960 when they were still the Primettes, but not released under that name) bills them as the Supremes. All singles and albums thereafter follow the same. In fact, their first album was issued in 1962, and was called Meet the Supremes.

As a primary reference, please see both Dreamgirl by Mary Wilson. --b. Touch 05:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

June 28, 1967

Page 267 of Mary Wilson's Dreamgirl: My Life as a Supreme book lists the date of the Flamingo Hotel engagement as having occured from June 28 1967 - July 19 1967. Both this text and Gerald Posner's Motown book mention that Ballard was fired after the first show. Page 203 of the Wilson book lists an inprecise July as the general date; Since a paragraph on page 204 also sets up a time period of "That July", it is probably a simple mistake. The June 28 date corrabates with the date given on this article [2], as Ballard was actually fired during the early-morning hours of June 29. Please do not change this, July 23 is incorrect. --b. Touch 06:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ballard's final appearance on a Supremes single

As per Mary Wilson and page 208 of Dreamgirl: My Life As a Supreme, "Reflections" is the last Supremes A-side single (and the only "Diana Ross & the Supremes" era single) to feature Florence Ballard. This is incorrect, as "In And Out Of Love" was recorded with Ballard.

2. IN AND OUT OF LOVE Produced by Brian Holland and Lamont Dozier Track recorded in L.A. April 20, additional overdubs in Detroit June 12 and 13 and July 7, 1967 Working Title: SUMMER GOOD, SUMMER BAD Released as a single October 25, 1967 Included on the album REFLECTIONS (March 1968)

Please note: Ballard sings on "Reflections," and "In And Out Of Love." Barry White was quoted as saying that he was in the recording studio--sneaked in--while "Forever Came Today" was being recorded.

There is strong evidence that "Forever Came Today" was Ballard's last song? It was noted in "All That Glittered" that Wilson's voice was not considered suitable for the above song, so, Ballard's voice was used and multi-tracked. However, Ballard's voice can also be heard on "Aquarius/Let The Sunshine In" album on "Let The Music Play." The immediately above is stated in the Public Domain.

I agree but I heard that on "Forever Came Today" that it was Mary and Cindy but the mixed their voices with the Andantes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased?

I'm not really in full support of the idea that this article is that good. While, historically it is a good presentation of the facts about the group, I feel that it does nothing to give credit to Diana Ross's talents or accomplishments and again, as most pieces do, paints Mary Wilson and Florence Ballard as poor victims as those with the real talent who were sadly stepped on and made inconsequential by Ross via Gordy's ambition and their affair. Anyone agree?

I don't agree, at all. There is no bias for or against Ross, Ballard, or Wilson; the article simply states verifiable fact. The article doesn't intentionally paint either Wilson nor Ballard as a victim. What happened to Ballard is accurately retold here. It is true Ballard felt pushed aside; whether she actually was or not is uncertain and therefore not mentioned. Also, at no time does the article discuss Wilson's personal feelings about the Supremes). The article acknowledges that Ross' presence upfront was an important element of its success, which is very true. As far as Ross' accomplishments, this article focuses on The Supremes as a group, as it should (aolthough there probably should be some mention of Ross' solo career). To add several paragraphs of gushing praise for Diana Ross would actually add a bias that the article currently lacks. --FuriousFreddy 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FuriousFreddy just hit the nail on the head. While this is one of those articles that will probably have people (i.e., rabid fans) tweaking and retweaking it as long as Wikipedia is in existence, for the most part this article paints an accurate picture about the group's history, success and legacy with plenty of relevant details. As FuriousFreddy said, all this article does is present facts as they are widely, widely corroborated to have happened. If people want to gripe that these facts make Diana look bad, then that is, I guess, just too bad. No offense, but your complaint simply sounds like the tired moaning of a diehard Diana Ross fan. This article is in no way, shape or form biased, and for all the schisms that exist in The Supremes' fan base regarding Flo and Mary vs. Diana, it does a great job maintaining neutrality and citing sources. --Cometrally (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

someday we will be together?

is that song based on the classical music Canon in D major? i heard a song that is based on that tune. i am not sure though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.237.194 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Supremes last TV appearance

I originally just said last appearance without details and was rightfully deleted. So I corrected with dates and notes. Now, I just need to make sure that was really their last TV appearance anywhere. American Bandstand on 2/21/1970 had film of their last Las Vegas appearance. Does that qualify as a "last TV appearance?" Should I corect the article to say " ... The Supremes final live television appearance together with Diana Ross ..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.93.38 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured status questioned

I have two major issues with this article, that, if not resolved, will force me to nominate it for removal from featured status. The first is that it lacks inline citations (there's only 25 in this article, even though it's so long). The second issue is that none of the images have fair use rationale. Orane (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The citations will be done, but will take time to properly complete. And several of the images actually _do_ have fair use rationales, and the others will get them. --FuriousFreddy 03:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what, screw it. Delist the article. Make my life easier. --FuriousFreddy 03:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's o.k. Take your time with it. And I didn't mean to sound so bossy. Orane (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying. People could help out, because I'm more than likely to be doing this myself. --FuriousFreddy 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll help when I have time. I'm working all weekend (damn it!), and classes begin on Monday for me. Orane (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Legacy section

I do wish whoever is deleting this section would stop doing so or at least discus it first. It's a perfectly reasonable contribution.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not reasonable, as it's unreferenced speculation. "Probably still the most successful girl group of all time in terms of actual records sold?" That's not encyclopedic. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the word 'probably' is inappropriate. It's a well known fact that far more records were sold in the 1960s than now so it is an intelligent, reasonable thought.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 06:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a well-known fact. That section shouldn't be put in without a reference and better, more solid language. Encylcopedias don't deal with "probables" and "maybes". They deal with factual information. Unless you have sales records to directly compare Supremes record sales with Destiny's Child or whoever records sales (and trust me, you don't - no one has those both the people at Universal Music, because Motown didn't release them to the RIAA or anyone else) you don't have facts. You're making presumptions based upon your perception that more records were sold in the 1960s than today, and the word "probably" is always dangerous to use in an encyclopedia, unless it comes from someone being quoted about a subject. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't help it if you are ignorant FuriousFreddy.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 12:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...and I can't help it if my "ignorance" causes me to keep that mess off the article. Have a nice day! --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

Is there an image for use on the R&B and Soul Music Portal which is not a fair use image and is a copyright free or public domain image? SriMesh | talk 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No free-use images of The Supremes. There's one of Diana Ross by herself, however: Image:DianaRoss.jpg --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Disco Success

Well I noticed that it does not include the chart postions for the 70's line-ups fro 74-77 on Disco so I added them( look a discography). It shows they had 3 disco #1's and rest top 5 which is never talk about anywahere. The thing is this artcale saids basically the 70's line-up was struggling. Yes in terms of R&B and Pop in 1973 and onward but in Disco they had great success and should be noted on this artcle that they were succelful in Disco and had 3 #1 Disco hits. Also that the 2 line-ups found new success in Disco and had and that that they regained some of their fame in the form of the Disco hits. I am also edditing the top samples things and including the songs in the 70's that wer top 10 Disco and will provide a sample of them soon, Thank you, Saimaroimaru_2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I perceive to think that the reason why it was taken out because there's too much chart info. You can mention the songs hitting the top ten/number-one spot on the now-vacant Billboard disco singles chart. If you wanna put all the chart information from all Supremes songs from various charts, it'll be better to post it on their discography page than on the main article, just saying, you know? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, not every one of the disco singles they put out came out in '75. LMAO! BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 10:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I undertsand the Disco charts are gone but its apart of their legacy wether we like it or not. Its a crime to not tell poeple the whole truth when its there to put up, part of remembering them and honoring these great singers is to put up all of their history not just one era of their music. I understand its a lot of info to add but The Supremes had a lot of top 10 hits and the chances of a consertive supremes fans going to the discography is 3 of 7 and they mainly just look at the 60's part of it.Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, well, it's there anyway, I had to correct a few things since you probably was the one who put "1975" at the end of every track, lol. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me see. Oops guess I rushed when I was typing it. Thanks for putting the right year lol. I agree its their decision but they won't even have the choice if they don't know its there, thus a reason to include the 70's top10 and plus I added in some 60's top 10 that you forgot on singles and albums as you see.

Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I add samples?

How do I add samples to wikipedia so I can add them to the approaite song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nvm

Nvm Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Let Me Go the Right Way" correction

"Let Me Go the Right Way" was orginally done by Florence Ballard and it was released at the time with her voice(studio versio).When they gave the lead to Diana to sing at Apollo they rerecorded it with her vocals.It should be noted that Flo did the orginal version while Diana did the second version and the second version is more availble than the first always appearing on greatest hits albums that inclede it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You sure about that? Because I heard the song on YouTube and the versions I heard were led by DIANA. You can hear Flo's background from the back so unless it's some rare collectible, I'm gonna need better source than that. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 10:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Best in terms of...

They are the best felmale group interms of Number of #1's yet they never won a grammy, how sad. The songs are great anyone yet isn't it sad they aren't recongnised by whoever is in control of who gets a grammy? Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think they'll get any honor from the Grammys unless another original member suddenly passes away. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I know right they were nominated twice yet never won and their vocally best songs didn't even get nominated at all how sad.I feel that this is the most underpreciated group in music history. Think about it.Never won any awards, the only recongize history is the 1964-1969 era. They are called Diana Ross and The Supremes yet they only went by that for 3 years at most of their 19 year existence( I am counting the two years as the primettes, 1959, and 1960), they hade numerous top ten albums, singles, and were invited to then racially dived places, they made music a lot easier for felmales to be succesful in, despite being the most famous motown group, they haven't had a proper movie about them and Dreamgirls was inspired from them at best, their 70's legacy is completely destroyed despite only haveing 2 bad years(1973 and 1974) in terms of singles versuses the 60's era where they had 4 years of singles bad luck(1959-1962), they had members with great work history like Susanye who also had the same range and control as Mariah Carey,the geatest hit albums are misleading when it saids the Number #1's I expect all not just the sixties and stoned love as a bonus , I want all the pop, Disco and R&B numbers one unless it said on the title pop number 1#'s in which they don't and among ther things.Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's partially because no one in Motown really paid attention to the Supremes during that period, plus Diana's career pretty much overshadowed anything they accomplish after that. That and Florence Ballard's tragic story. Maybe they'll get the recognition...we can all hope. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

FA

Im sorry guys and gals, im going to have to but this article for reassessment, its no longer up to FA standards, sorry. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that?

Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

American Beatles?

Opening passage describes the supremes as "the most successful American vocal group of the sixties, second only to The Beatles" - this sentence doesn't make sense. How can they been seen as second to the Beatles in a category in which the Beatles don't even exist. They are not and American vocal group, and the sumpremes are. I think either this should be changed to describe them as "the most successful group of the sixties, second only to The Beatles", or as "the most successful American vocal group of the sixties" because at the moment this line is illogical. I just thought I'd check this with you wikipedians before changing it because I might be overlooking something. 82.69.80.47 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I Question Their Success

The Supremes are called the most famous, succesful girl group in history or just the sixties and the second best in the sixties with the Beatles taking #1. I question even if they are the most succel vocalists of the sixties except in terms of 60's girl groups. Their only claim to fame are their 12 #1 ones in the pop, the 3 #1 in Disco which is always down played and the number 1 R&B in their early 70's career bring a total of 16 #1's across the board. However I don't get the fact that they have so much success yet the number of albums and singles sold say other wise. Whats up with that? Is this a false history of their success or is there just missing info when it comes to the single and album sales?Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Saimaroimaru, I noticed that too; I think some of the claims here may a bit bold. The most concrete fact I've found so far is "the most sucessful black vocal group of the 1960's"; although I see the "2nd only to the Beatles" claim bandied about a fair bit in publications - I suspect as its just a common myth / misapprehension. I dunno for certain yet, so I'll let the article stand as is until I know for sure. I always though Banarama were the most sucessful female group eva, - I certainly bought enough of their singles in the early 80's! ( Ceoil ^sláinte 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I checked them out Banarama are ok in my opinion though I do appreciate them covering a 70's era supreme song.If the supremes ever get together, maybe they could do a duet wth the group. LOL. But anyway it just confuses me suposely motown keep all the sales records for themseleves. If so then how can billboard chart them correctly since single sales were part of the charting formual and then I look and see sales on singles on which supposedly that info is kept from the public. It makes me wonder just how many gold records they have actually earned but have not gotten because of motown keeping this info. While the chances of them releasing this info is slim we have a better chance of them finally realing the 2nd vol. of the 70's songs.Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL re Banarama; but these days I'm more of a Shakesphere's Sister man myself! Anyway, he, all the billboard stats are here, and I 've deleted a few claims since my last post. Anything you spot, please edit the article directly. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The vid is a bit scarey, but what a song. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

THE SUPREMES FROM 1964-1969 WERE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL AMERICAN ACT. THEY WERE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FEMALE GROUP OF THE 1960s AND REMAIN THE MOST SUCESSFUL FEMALE GROUP WITH THE MOST NUMBER ONES.

They were second behind The Beatles in Number Ones and total record sales: the Beatles had 20 Number One Billboard records while The Supremes had 12 Number One Billboard records, and second in total record sales. This is why The Supremes were second only to The Beatles.

All concerned are well-aware that The Beatles were British and The Supremes were American. Once again, as always, these facts are well documented within the "Public Domain."

No other American Singing Group had as many Number Ones as The Supremes: The Four Seasons had 5; The Beach Boys had 2; The Temptations had 4; The Jackson FIve had 4; the Four Tops had 2; these were the major American Recording Acts with which I can quote as I write this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.55 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Elvis?68.154.249.167 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting of name

Since they are called "The Supremes", should The be capitalized throughout the whole article? Sorry I rarely work on groups or bands so don't know the rule on the "The" part. — Realist² (Speak) 01:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to The. — Realist² (Speak) 02:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 03:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Kaaren Ragland of the Supremes: NOT!

Kaaren Ragland and Karen Jackson were never members of the Supremes! They were post-Supremes back-up singers for Mary Wilson. Please stop writing untrue "facts." Exguyparis (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, PLEASE stop trying to position Kaaren Ragland as a member of The Supremes. Anyone remotely familiar with Motown history knows that this assertion is, at best, BS. It is inexcusable that Ragland and company frequently bill themselves as "The Supremes." In Milan, for examples, the posters for her last show read "The Supremes" with no mention of "Sound of..."

Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.3.21 (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is well documented that The Supremes performed their final farewell performance June 12 1977. After this the group was officially disband. The final lineup of Supremes was Mary Wilson, Scherrie Payne and Susaye Greene. Motown has documented who the Supremes are when they released "Diana Ross & the Supremes 20th Anniversary " Lp in 1980. This album pictured all 8 ladies who recorded and performed as members of The Supremes ( Diana Ross, Mary Wilson, Florence Ballard, Cindy Birdsong, Jean Terrell, Lynda Laurence, Scherrie Payne and Susaye Greene.) A full detailed history and Supremes' family tree can also be found in the Motown/Universal "Supremes Box Set" released in 2000. Another great source of Supremes history is "The Supremes 70's Anthology" CD released by Motown/Universalin 2004 that details the members and history till the final performance in June of 1977. Also check in both of Mary Wilson's books "DreamGirl, My Life As a Supreme" and "Supreme Faith" she makes it very clear who is, and is not, one of the Supremes. You can also check out her official website that details The Supremes' discography and members - http://www.marywilson.com/discography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.21.36 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's nine Supremes during that period (Barbara Martin was a Supreme), Ten if you count the "Primettes' years" (Betty Mcglown). Still, I hope this will settle things and the "edit war"/vandalism will stop now.--Halls4521 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From Mary Wilson http://tri-statedefenderonline.com/articlelive/articles/581/1/Supremes-drama-continues-as-Dreamgirls-opening-nears/Page1.html“Wilson has a completely different point of view, and referred to Ragland as “delusional.”The group disbanded in 1977,” Wilson told the Chronicle in an e-mail. “I later toured using several ladies. Kaaren was only used on tours in the ’80s. She has never recorded with me or was ever signed to Motown. All of the eight women who were ‘Supremes’ had a record deal which made them Supremes by contract. At the time I would bill myself as the Supreme. Even now I sometimes do so, but none of the others are Supremes. If by billing myself as the Supreme meant all the people I had as back-up were Supremes as well, that would mean 20 some ladies could call themselves Supremes.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.21.36 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.marywilson.com/discography.html Detailed Supremes history, with members of the group listed on Mary Wilson's official website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.148.196 (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This art needs a dab link

to the US Supreme Court. The Supremes is standard journalistic shorthand for it. --81.105.242.11 (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I question their success again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists Have a look at this they don't mak on the list at all, If they are so succelful the why aren't they on this list. It offcial Evlis is the best American recording artist and The Jackson 5 is the best black recording artists of the 60's, I'll believ they had this supoosed success when I see the album and singles sales. Saimaroimaru (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not understand that Motown was listed as a "C" corporation which is really a privately-owned company. Therefore, Motown was not obligated to open it's sales book to RIAA Certification...which is why The Supremes's total record sales are not known. It was only in 1977 and after, that Motown opened its sales book to RIAA Certification.

Plus, many of those who are considered "Best Sellers" are not just for their particular time period--but instead--their total record sales over the life of their recordings. The Supremes were second--in total record sales for the 1960s--not The Rolling Stones, or The Beach Boys, or The Four Seasons, or The Temptations, ect, et. For a Black, all-female, vocal group, who did not write, orchestrate, produce or arrange their music, The Supremes actually surpassed their male peers in absolute accomplishments.

It should be noted that no Beatles's album sold more than 3,500,000 in its heyday; instead in the 1970 & 1980, some of the Beatle's albums surpassed the 10,000,000 mark.

Many of the quotes for absolute record sales are not exact numbers...but, general, ball-park numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.1.76 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"their success made it possible for future African-American R&B and soul musicians to find mainstream success"

Can this be re-worded a bit? They certainly opened doors and broke barriers for many artists, but the way it's currently worded, you'd think they were the first Black R&B vocal group to have big hits, which is not correct. Retro Agnostic (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I get what it's saying, it's not trying to say they were the first black group to find major success, in fact The Mills Brothers, The Platters and The Shirelles surpassed them initially but what they did was even bigger: they became among the first black groups to make regular appearances on Ed Sullivan, they made regular appearances at the Copacabana, their records were so successful in the U.S. and abroad that people found out a market for the Supremes' music all over the world. If you ever asked people in international charts what was their introduction to R&B, they'll tell you straight up that it was the Supremes. I think that's why the wording has stayed that way. No one broke barriers the way they did. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 09:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:]

diana roosss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.53.124 (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit War on Article

There seems to be an edit war going on with this article between those that say The Supremes ended in 1977 and those that say The Supremes were re-formed (and that Motown, Universal, Berry Gordy, and all 1959-1977 members of the group have lost all rights to the group's name and material). I ask that everyone on both sides please discuss this before any more edits (instead of forcing your views/opinions/"info" on everyone. I also would like an adminitrator to come to oversee this article ASAP. Thank You. --Halls4521 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal

{{Portal|The Supremes}} You have been chosen to have a portal !!!!! here you go guys ..pls add it to your watch list!!! Portal:The Supremes
LOL was asked to do it ...now we should chose a second or even a third selections..any ideas ???? ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Great idea!! I'll see if I can come up with some more. Thanks.--Halls4521 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Did not win Grammy in 1966

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please fix this page, because it is incorrect.

Citation 22 shows that "You Just Keep Me Hanging On" was awarded a Grammy in 1966.

This is not correct. The song came out in 1966, but got a "Grammy Hall Of Fame" award 1999.

I am a huge Temptations fan, and every huge Temptations fan knows that THEY got the first Grammy for Motown, in 1969, for "Cloud Nine"!

Thank you very much, to whomever takes the time to edit the entry (or better, delete the sentence completely).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.41.10 (talk) 18 March 2010

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.

I've removed the assertion - it didn't seem to check out; the ref listed it as 1999, as you said here. Perhaps someone else could refactor the info in the correct location.

 Done  Chzz  ►  13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Soul Train

I know this seems trivial but should we start an article listing all of their tv appearances and/or performances. Also should we noted somewhere in the article that were on Soul Train twice? Season 5 ep 32. Overall Ep 177. March 27, 1976 and Season 6 ep 20. Overall ep 204. January 1, 1977Umishiru (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer to second question yes. For the first question, that answer depends on the total amount of appearances they had. If it was many, then a new, separate article created might be okay. If not too many, then the answer would have to be no. Best, --Discographer (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I start the article/section?Umishiru (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Found more info.Season 2 Episode 30 Overall episode 60. May 12, 1973, Season 5 Episode 1 Overall 146. August 23, 1975 and the first best of soul episode: Season 2 episode 37 overall 67. August 11, 1973. They were on Soul Train 4 times and a 5tha best of episode. This needs to be noted as many made the impression that they did 1 or 2 or none at all even had a epi which was a first of a season(5th season) Here is a performance of them at soul train(one of them) doing He's My Man.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nESwx4otH4Umishiru (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The show's episode sequential count does not - and should not - be mentioned in the article; however, it can be noted that "The Supremes made four appearances on Soul Train, and with one additional appearance on a best-of episode." Best, D

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Lead

I don't like the lead. It says:

"The Supremes, an American female singing group, were the premier act of Motown Records during the 1960s."

Wouldn't something like : "The Supremes were an American female singing group and the premier act of Motown during the 1960s." be better?

Savagedjeff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

Actually, as for myself, it's much better the way it is now

190.178-y-lo-que-toque (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The current lead sentence is really bad: "The Supremes WAS..."? That means a newspaper article back then would have stated "The Supremes is appearing at the Copa next week." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exguyparis (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

FALSE fact

"At their peak in the mid-1960s, The Supremes rivaled The Beatles in worldwide popularity"

Copying from the source noted by the author (i.e http://www.allmusic.com/artist/p5563): "The most successful American performers of the 1960s, the Supremes for a time rivaled even the Beatles in terms of red-hot commercial appeal"

When did "red-hot commercial appeal" and "popularity" became synonyms? Please correct that false fact asap.

BTW, where does the original articles say "worldwide"? The original article is clearly talking about the American market

--190.178-y-lo-que-toque (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2012

The caption to the photo of the Supremes at top-right of the page incorrectly identifies the members of the group. Diana Ross (who is on the right) is id'd as being on the left and Florence Ballard, who is on the left, is id'd as being on the right. Please change 1. the words "left" following DR to "right" and 2. "right" following FB to "left". 98.240.251.128 (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding a members lineage chart

Can someone replace the textual information on Members info to add a chart instead?

Like this one

Excerpt from Sugababes

Members

Member		1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
	Siobhán Donaghy (1998–2001)
	Mutya Buena (1998–2005)
	Keisha Buchanan (1998–2009)
	Heidi Range (2001–present)
	Amelle Berrabah (2005–present)
	Jade Ewen (2009–present)

I've added this into the subpage Talk:The Supremes/Members for easier administration, regards

Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A chart is at List of The Supremes members, however, no chart is to be added to this featured article. Best, --Discographer (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Supremes. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20150707235113/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707235113/http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame to http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/awards/hall-of-fame

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) 20:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Supremes. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081003080543/http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/explore/ady.cfm?DAY=24&MONTH=10 to http://artsedge.kennedy-center.org/explore/ady.cfm?DAY=24&MONTH=10
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050319234320/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/20/mary.wilson/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Music/04/20/mary.wilson/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050524142651/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/92903.html to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/92903.html

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) 17:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Supremes. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081230213142/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thesupremes/albums/album/115657/review/6067424/the_supremes to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/thesupremes/albums/album/115657/review/6067424/the_supremes

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) 09:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Supremes. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20151006092638/http://tsdmemphis.com/news/2006/oct/18/supremes-drama-continues-as-dreamgirls-opening/ to http://tsdmemphis.com/news/2006/oct/18/supremes-drama-continues-as-dreamgirls-opening/

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) 23:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)