Talk:Florence Ballard

message: I don’t think Ballard or [Thomas] Chapman started their relationship in 1967. I think it was 1965 because I saw a photo of them holding hands together outside Florence's house in Detroit. It was on Facebook or somewhere else.TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It Was In 67 When They Started Dating In 65 She Was With Roger 2600:1009:B05B:BC86:0:51:2F3A:8301 (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The only husband Ballard has was Thomas Chapman. --b. Touch 05:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapman 

message: This article should not be in the "Motown performers" category. Ballard never had a solo deal with Motown. Please do not add it back. --b. Touch 02:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What does solo have to do with it? She worked for Motown, correct? Jake b 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motown 

message: If People are going to change things in this artical then they need to start showing proof to back up their claims as in a link, or a source. I don't believe that it is acceptable to write under a photo that Flo looks sad because she lost her home? 
I do agree that using that pic as an example of Flo's depression is someone making a personal statement about Flo. However, there are insertions into Flo's Bio that are in the "Public Domain" that are accessible to the general public...such as "Call Her Miss Ross," and "All That Glittered." If someone would read the insertions, one would know that no one is making up these assertions. 
To whom it may concern: if something is inserted from "Public Domain," it does not need to be cited. I think the issue is that "whomever" does not understand the meaning of "Public Domain"?
:Yes, for it to be included in a Wikipedia article, it DOES need to be cited, whether or not the source is Public Domain. MM 207.69.137.6 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing without proof 

message: This website states--quite clearly--that if the information is gathered from "Public Domain," it does not need to be cited.
:You are -- quite clearly -- wrong. MM 207.69.137.6 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but I think that editor's long gone . Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If, in fact, it is clearly stated within "The Public Domain" and thus, mainstream, it needs to be stated not necessarily cited. Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia standards 

message: :Image:Florence Ballard - The Supreme.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Florence Ballard - The Supreme.jpg

message: Another unnecessarily exhaustive discography on an artist that, unfortunately, had little to no solo success. Even more than the discography on Mary Wilson's page, this reads more like one that you might find for an artist like Elvis Presley or The Beatles. The article is also ridden with the usual opinions, speculations and lack of citations that usually swirl around The Supremes. This one is a good example:
From that point, Detroiters saw Diana Ross' relationship with Berry Gordy as the primary reason for florence's decline. In fact, according to Ballard's daughters, Diana had stated that she was going to see to it that Flo's children would receive royalty payments after Flo's death. According to Flo's children, these payments never came through. This added to tensions between the remaining Supremes and Berry Gordy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missthingeastcoast (talk • contribs) 01:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to make it smaller than it is. Other than the Supremes story, it's not really that much interesting. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another "biased" Motown article