Talk:Beacham Theatre

Help for persons mentioned

This article mentions several Living Persons. All information was reliably sourced and verified to highest extent possible. In the event that an editor has a policy-based concern please see WP:Biographies of living persons. In the event that you are the party mentioned and have a concern with the inclusion of information about you on Wikipedia, WP:Biographies of living persons/Help contains advice for people affected by being referred to in a Wikipedia article or on a talk page. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Rate

Please re-evaluate class and importance. Formerly stub-class and low-importance. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Photos

Public Domain, Fair use, old and recent images are needed. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolution of clubber death date and date of last Sasha event

To date, I have been unable to resolve the discrepancy between the known last Sasha performance at the Beacham (that I can find reference to) on March 19, 1994, and the reported death of Teresa Schwartz at Dekkos on May 1, 1994.

• Sasha performance at Barabarella May 6, 1993. Not to be confused.
• Sasha performance at Beacham March 19, 1994, for "Thee Renaissance Reunion."
• Sasha cancelled a scheduled Reunion performance in Summer of 1994 (date unknown).
• Death of Teresa Schwartz at Dekko's reported May 1, 1994
• Beacham Theatre was closed for remodeling on July 23, 1994, (to become Zuma Beach?).
• No Reunion events were held week of July 23rd 1994.
• Sasha returned to perform at Barbarella's on July 28, 1994, for "Made in the USA".
• Beacham was set to reopen (as Zuma?) July 30.
• A Reunion late night "with a twist" announcement was pending.

Johnvr4 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Beacham's walls

"The Beacham's walls have borne witness to comedy, tragedy, cheers, awe, excitement, glamour, despair, "new-found love, love lost, life, death," redemption, rebirth and restoration."

• Sentence is loosely adapted from a source I accessed late last night. I now cannot locate the source to determine paraphrasing.

Johnvr4 (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

" For nearly 100 years, the walls of the Beacham Theatre have borne witness to comedy, tragedy, glamour, excitement, cheers, awe, despair, new-found love, love lost, life, adaptation, death, redemption, rebirth, and restoration." 00:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Beacham "bit part"

This phrase has a source which I need to locate.19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

" Much like a protagonist in the cinematographic medium responsible for its creation, The Beacham Theatre, though it has sometimes had to play a bit part, has endured and overcome adversity."

romantic flowery prose in the lede section

I removed some flowery prose namely "Much like a protagonist in the cinematographic medium responsible for its creation, The Beacham Theatre, though it has sometimes had to play a bit part, has endured and overcome adversity. For nearly 100 years, the walls of the Beacham Theatre have borne witness to comedy, tragedy, glamour, excitement, cheers, awe, despair, new-found love, love lost, life, adaptation, death, redemption, rebirth, and restoration."

This is NOT written in the neutral tone of an encyclopaedia and should be removed or re-written. My edit has been reverted by User:Johnvr4 who seems to have ownership issues with this article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Theroadislong verysorry for the confusion. Neutrality is preferred but that line is from a source (or two) as indicated by the previous talk sections above. I cannot seem to find that reliable (newspaper) source and I've now marked it with a citation needed tag. We are always looking to improve WP and this entry but you came in right in the middle of a heated discussion about the removed links. Again I'm sorry for any shortness. Your good faith efforts are appreciated and the sentence should have already had a citation needed. I apologize again. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In which case I think we would be better served if the quote was removed until you find a source. The lede section only summarises the articles content. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the questionable prose, and did some other trimming as well. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It is/was a quote and very likely two quotes but I have not yet re-discovered the sources.

BTW on the trimming, "Historic" theater" and "storied nightclub" are neutral, factual, accurate, reliable, verifiable etc. etc. "Storied" is a simply a replacement for "infamous". I can put in some citations if inclusion is an issue. I thought the sentences matched the remaining body of the text very well. It was not that flowery given the reliable source it came from (you'll have to take my word on that). Would you please replace the removed lede statement with a brief description of the body? Johnvr4 (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Also consider "Downtown's notorious venue" comes directly from the Beacham Theaters own website. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In line external links

@Johnvr4: There is no consensus for including a large number of inline external links in this article, the consensus for not including them is in the guideline WP:EL - WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and WP:ELNO as has already been pointed out to you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

First, I did not include any "inline" external links.

An infobox is not "inline linking".

An External links section is not "inline linking".

WP:ELPOINTS

1.This guideline does not apply to inline citations...

2.Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.

3. Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum.

How many External links in the External links section is "excessive"? Johnvr4 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You created an info box for the sole purpose of adding more external links, this seems to be gaming the system., info boxes are not designed for this. The external links section was excessive, totally inappropriate and against consensus. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: Regarding your question 'how many external links in the external links section is "excessive"?': WP:ELPOINTS #3 (of which you state the first sentence) says "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." That means that even 1 link can be excessive. You really have to ask yourself what a link adds over the content of the article, and what a second external link adds over the contents of the article ánd the contents of the first external link. That then goes on for the third (what does it add over the content of the article, and the two external links already there), and so on. This article is quite large, it has 85 references that are being used throughout (and some support several sentences).

All external links, specifically except for references, are defined as external links. "Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." - that means that all those links, including the ones in infoboxes, that are discouraged (or even forbidden) per ELNO or other parts of the guideline can be removed per this guideline (unless there is a convincing reason to keep them, or there is a local consensus that states that the guideline should in a specific case not apply). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Theroadislong, Do not accuse me of creating an infobox for the sole purpose of gaming the system. I put the infoboxed link in the appropriate section where the external media I was linking was relevant and nothing more. I do not appreciate your accusation one bit!

WP:ELPOINTS#2 says to put the link in an info box or the external link section and it is not inline so what is your point??

@Dirk Beetstra, One link can be excessive? ...but more than two absolutely is? Is that the concern you are raising in this case? EL:NO does not apply here. if you think it does, which # do you think applies and to which link? Johnvr4 (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have 34,569 pages on my watch list and can't recall another article that uses info boxes in this manner, but I'm done here, do what ever you like with the article, which you clearly feel is "yours" I am removing it from my watch list. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. Use of the template official website is optional. For what it is worth, I've removed a few links from contention for inclusion. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: No, on some articles 1 is too much, on other articles that is 10. There is no absolute answer to that. Every single link needs to be weighed against the contents of the article, and merit inclusion. These links don't do that. Beacham Theater is NOT special over any other theater in such a way that it merit an article layout and content that is completely different from any other theater page on Wikipedia, or from any other subject page on Wikipedia.

WP:ELNO does apply .. #1 (for the linkfarm in the external links section), #9 (for some of the adapted links (which first were #13) in the linkfarm in the external links section), #10 (for the boxes containing social networking links), #11 (for some of the links in the external links section), #13 (for most of the links in the external links section before you adapted them to be direct, however now some of them are #9), possibly #19 for some of the links.

And again, that section in WP:ELOFFICIAL then follows with 'normally only one .. '. Only one ... Only one ... with very few exceptions. What you think are exceptions are not exceptions. The social, even while controlled completely by another subject, is a subject in itself. I will again state, I have done these cleanups on thousands and thousands of pages, and most of those edits still stand, as that is the consensus as codified in this guideline, and our policies.

Look, John, I know you are trying to make a nice website for Beacham Theater here, and you've done a lot of work on that, but I think you should take a step back, and get some other editors involved (e.g. through a WikiProject). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

While I cannot be sure what you are discussing, I agree with the comments from Theroadislong and Dirk Beetstra as they apply to this. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra That is totally WP:UNCIVIL and that accusation is unacceptable here or anywhere. It is not the first time you have made a similar accusation about me: "I know you are trying to make a nice website for Beacham Theater here." You've also accused me of creating "a promotional piece for Beacham Theatre" diff.

Two editors have accused have me of editing in bad faith is this thread and a third went out of his way to state agreement with those two in principle... Pick one place to discuss this already! These editors repeatedly chose to avoid discussing the issue here until now with accusations when discussion progress is being made elsewhere:WP:ELN Johnvr4 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you clean up Ford's Theatre? It would be a nice feather in your cap.

Ford's Theatre: Where the subject of the article is notable for more than one thing. In fact, the subject most notable for something other than the subject building itself.

Also note the photo of the Peterson House prominent on the Ford Theater Page. It is acceptable because the stories are forever intertwined and can not be separated.

Also note the linked slideshow hosted by NYT in the External links section. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you please address the links I identified? --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: I was making you a compliment, and we're trying to go out of our way to help you. You however still seem to be convinced that we need to tell you for every single link why it is inappropriate, while it is actually on you to show for each that it should be included.

Be careful with WP:OTHERLINKS arguments, I already told you that I am progressively cleaning through thousands of articles (and I saw that there are people now doing the same). P will come soon, and maybe this F was not in the current set I am clearing ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, look carefully at the wording of the first diff, and I hope that you've read my analysis on the orlandoremembered link on WP:ELN. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz The links add understanding to the entry. Please pick one place to discuss at at time and one link, raise the concern there, and please don't even start with the I didn't answer your questions stuff. That is the issue I've already raised, -repeatedly,- at WP:ELN! The current conversation about the merit of each individual link is progressing at WP:ELN#Beacham Theatre.

@user:Beetstra I appreciate compliments but not underhanded ones. Common spammer strawman arguments at WP:OTHERLINKS?? I gave you an example of a WP page after You asserted as proof of your position "that the Beacham Theater is NOT special over any other theater in such a way that it merit an article layout and content that is completely different from any other theater page on Wikipedia, or from any other subject page on Wikipedia". Your opinion is total garbage as was obvious in the very first page I looked at: Ford's Theatre. Read your own statement. It only took one glance to prove you wrong.

Last, you continue to harp on external links (like the Social) that after review I have already removed from contention -perhaps days ago!

Why? WP:STICK Johnvr4 (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

You say that other pages contain links as well ... they may have to go as well. It is not an argument to include them here. --23:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Johnvr4 is going to get consensus to include any of the links, and I see no reason to contribute further. If consensus forms for any, I may respond. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the faulty argument being alleged. The argument presented by user:Beetstra was that there was an absence on similar WP pages (no other Theater pages w/ similar links on WP) somehow was the proof that he was correct. I simply showed that argument faulty.

An argument that I made was that certain links add to the understanding of the article for the reader.

Don't forget that WP:EL has a common sense requirement. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

The WP:UCS guideline, fits right in with WP:RF.

Again, WP:consensus is based on the quality of the argument and not a WP:vote. Continued arguments that are simple bare assertion fallacies ("It doesn't belong"), allegations of promotion, or spamming, or failure to understand relevance, or WP:JDL, will fail. I suggest that perhaps you could present a valid argument supporting the position that a particular link being discussed at WP:ELN does not add any understanding to this article - which you have not yet done. Last, if consensus forms, why then at that point would we need your opinion? In the event that you have something relevant about the merits of an individual link or a thought to add to the discussion, then please add it now over at WP:ELN. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And it is not a faulty argument. Your comparison between Beacham Theater and Ford's Theater run completely askew. Ford's Theater does not have infoboxes throughout with social networking sites or links to picture and video sites. The external links contain, besides the official link, a number of links that all of them contain information that is not included in the article. And the significance of the events that happened in Ford's theater are orders of magnitude different.

Yes, common sense, as in, the links should contain information that expands the readers knowledge on the topic. Otherwise it makes no sense - does it makes sense to you to send people to a website where the information is fully covered by the article they just came from?

Indeed, we determine consensus on the quality of arguments. Those arguments are not 'look, but X has the same, so it is fine here as well', 'you did not notify me that we were discussing this in the first place', arguments are 'this website contains a wealth of information which goes way beyond what is or even could be covered in the Wikipedia article, and it is not covered by one of the other external links either'. We haven't seen any of those arguments, you have even agreed with our analysis for the links where we looked deeper. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You made the Faulty argument that the proof was simply that other crap does not exist on WP. I pointed to Ford's. That's it. Your assertion was faulty. That argument is over. Ford's doesn't justify inclusion of anything and I never made the argument that it did.

WP:UCS applies. I bring that up because only you are simply weighing your own opinion on the merits of my convincing reasons to keep them against WP:IAR as is shown in your edit on this talk page of 14:02, 7 Feb. and that will simply not fly. Your ignore all the rules actions in lieu of quality discussion or policy instruction or other guidance has made an easily explained and rectified concern and turned a tiny issue into a giant mess. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"Why don't you clean up Ford's Theatre? It would be a nice feather in your cap.", you started the comparison with Ford's theater. if you say that Ford's theater needs cleanup, you assert that the external links there are of the same quality as here. If they were, they should also go there, that is not an argument that they should stay there. Your arguments have to be based on the merit here, and they fail.

There is no mess, the article improved now the linkfarm and all boxes throughout the article are gone. There is more possible to improve, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It was apparent that you see almost every external link in every article you look as problematic because of the suggestive measurement you were applying that such links added or did not add. You've forgotten that The primary purpose of external links from Wikipedia articles is to provide users with sources of additional reliable information about the topic, not web forum to argue about it, companies selling something related to it, or self-published punditry about it.

I confess that the suggestion to edit Fords was a bit underhanded as the intent was for you to go show me how greatly could clean up links at Ford's (and to then see what arguments, if any, then ensued). Your own statements across multiple sections of ELN indicate a faulty understanding and especially of exceptions. I will state again that I am not a WP policy expert either. I usually learn by an accidental violation an long discussion especially in subjective cases.

I'm sorry that you've misinterpreted my suggestion and observation that you made a faulty argument as an argument that I submitted for inclusion. I keep trying to explain that you simply can not prove the negative assertion that you made just prior to any mention of Fords. But drop it already Eh? Focus on a valid argument supporting or rejecting an individual link over where you initially started the talk section at WP:ELN. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

But you now get to a point .. The primary purpose of external links from Wikipedia articles is to provide users with sources of additional reliable information about the topic .. I am indeed rather aggressively cleaning up throughout Wikipedia (with very little resistance), and that sentence nicely sums up why many articles need cleaning. On a three-line stub I am less aggressive, the article does not contain much info, likely is hardly referenced, and there is still a lot of information that can be included. If there are 5 external links there, eventhough they all fail inclusion standards, may help the article forward in the future (my experience is that that does not happen, I have had those discussions about specific links 5 years ago, and many of those articles did not grow anything since, and the external link is still that, an external link; proposing the link on the talkpage is just as effective). Here we were talking about a massive article with 85 references. That means that a LOT of information is incorporated in the subject, and that a lot of meaningful 'external links' have already been used as references (see intro of WP:EL: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it."). An external link then has to contain a wealth of information beyond the article to then be suitable as an external link that does "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." It takes only 10 seconds to check a good handful of links to see whether they contain much info beyond .. what was linked first (the main domains of servers that supposedly contain a wealth of info about the subject), or what was linked later (mostly single-image links, texts only a few lines long, etc. etc. - we discussed 3 of those on ELN). It really takes no time to check whether a link is worthy over such a massive article, if the linked document has only a picture and 1/3 page of text, I already know that that will not be an amount of detail that goes beyond what is in the article and hence that it should not be linked. And the burden is on you. You take one link, and explain to us 'look, this contains visitor statistics of 1993-2011, showing popularity etc. etc. That is information that cannot be included and may be showing that the subject was popular in that time'. You try to have us tell you for each link why it should not be included, where for all of them it is an easy 'does not contain anything that we did not already know from the article'... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Your "arguments" are hitting up against a lot of these. WP:AADD. I've responded at WP:ELN#Beacham Theatre#Arbitrary break (specific link discussions) Johnvr4 (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit undo Comment

@Acousmana: Thank you for your recent edits to the article. I am going to revert one of the deletions in the lead section that numerous reliable sources state as fact (as time allows I'll add more where needed). Since this is a notable aspect of the topic (perhaps the Most notable aspect) and is covered in the body of the article, I believe that it should remain in the lead. I understand your concern is: that it may be a violation of "WP:PEACOCK, at the time, little known outside of Florida, so the "recognized internationally as a birthplace and critical component" of dance music is a massive stretch."

It was well known outside of Florida (especially after Sasha's first visit).

Numerous sources are available for verification (see the cultural impact section and the sources used there, the long quotes within those sources and coincidentally, those temporarily in my sandbox52: User:Johnvr4/sandbox52#List_of_existing_sources_for_Orlando_dance_music_scene especially the non-local sources. If more sources are required in the body, we can certainly add them wherever you think they are needed but the statement that was removed from the lead is not a stretch, nor promotion, nor a violation of WP:Peacock. I welcome your experience and further discussion. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Johnvr4:, thanks for your view.In the context of the history of dance music, I don't see sources here that support the statement "recognized internationally as a birthplace and critical component of the electronic dance music movement." There are three claims in this sentence: 1)recognized internationally; 2)birthplace; 3)critical component. Where is the citation that underpins this assertion? Without it this is certainly WP:PEACOCK. The Digweed quote, about the Sasha and Digweed party in 93, and the other similar quotes about the early 90s, when a handful of European DJs visited, doesn't provide support. 93 was already 5 years after electronic dance music had blown up in Europe, so the idea that AAHZ was some kind of birthplace, or that it was a critical component of an international scene, is most definitely a stretch. I will refactor the statement in lieu of further evidence to prove its validity. Acousmana (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Acousmana, Again this is no stretch. There are a plethora of sources that state these three things which I have directed you to both in the article (especially the cultural significance section) and also in my new sandbox draft. Please start with the Silcott book [1] for an understanding of this subject and then review what each source offers on each numbered concern. There are really a lot of sources that support this and I don't have time to sort each one out again (at least not this week). As you note, Sasha and other artists were part of that international recognition as was chronicled in those sources. European artists came early on (before 93) as mentioned in the sources and in 1993, the Orlando scene "exploded" and burst into the rest of the US.

1) recognized internationally- (look at the listed sources), what Sasha/Digweed said, (as well as his FL influenced work).

2)Birthplace- Second Summer of Love in Orlando, US Prog, and then see Florida Breaks genre first heard at the Beacham, then Prog vs breaks, and the Aahz "old school" -as well as that international recognition (on Firestone).

3) critical component - From 1988 to 1993, the Beacham was the Orlando scene. Orlando was one of if not the only U.K. influenced scenes in the U.S. Every other US scene was modeled on the Chicago House scene (Detroit, Philadelphia, New York etc.). Launched the careers of numerous producers. and so on. Please review sources- used, unused, and possible. This temp [diff] will make it easier to review. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

My mistake above, The lead does in fact need a citation added per MOS:CITELEAD Johnvr4 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This should do: “AAHZ: Unanimously cited as the mother of the movement, this seminal dance night at the Beacham Theater cultivated the late-night dance soil in the early ’80s that made the massive ’90s explosion possible. With an emphasis on the then-nascent European acid house sound, AAHZ vaulted the international DJ careers of residents Kimball Collins, Dave Cannalte and Chris Fortier. It also debuted stars like Sasha, Digweed, Cosmic Baby and Dave Seaman before closing in 1992”

• Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 2, 2013). "Dance dance revolution: An oral history of how the Chemical Brothers, all-night raves, and a massive club scene made Orlando's EDM scene legendary". The Orlando Weekly. Euclid Media Group. Retrieved July 28, 2016.; Ferguson, Jason; Le-Huu, Bao (July 3, 2013). "The Places: The venues and club nights that propelled Orlando's EDM culture in the '90s". The Orlando Weekly. Euclid Media Group. Retrieved July 28, 2016. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Acousmana: I would like to restore that previous language to the lead and add the above source. Before this is done, I would like to confirm with you, that the source above alleviates the WP:Peacock concern you've raised. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: prior statement is not accurate, so let's not restore it: 1) "Recognized internationally", still a stretch, a few UK acts and a German DJ?; 2) "critical component," critical to what? where? Orlando? Florida? the "electronic dance music movement" in the US? Perhaps. But internationally, no, not at all, it's a footnote; 3) any "birthplace" claim needs a clear indication what the context is, it's US-centric, nothing more.

There is simply too much Orlando press hyperbole here, let's be objective instead of over-inflating this. It's possible your close connection to the subject matter is skewing your perspective. Acousmana (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Acousmana: Okay, that source supports Beacham was A birthplace of, as well as critical to the Orlando, and Florida, and U.S. scenes. but you feel we need more support for "international recognition" than this source offers. There is also the birthplace of "internationally recognized" Florida breaks/ Orlando sound. This source also implies that the "international recognition" may be for the international careers of DJs that came from Aahz and these internationally recognized Djs are also "internationally recognized" for being from Aahz (referring to the international recognition of their credentials).

Is that also what you also got from this source?

It was also the first European/progressive scene in Orlando,...in FL,...in the U.S., and debuted international artists Sasha (DJ) and other notable Euro acts at Aahz prior to 1992 (Harald Blüchel--Cosmic Baby from the source-was a German act). It was also the birthplace of the Florida breaks genre.

These aspects as well as opening the door to other European acts to come to the US (mostly UK acts) seem to be the "international recognition" support coverage offered.

If nearly every source says something along these lines, then it's hardly hyperbole or my opinion to state it as fact and cite the support for it. Rather, it is more likely that the local language is based upon a summary of an Orlando news outlet's prior extensive coverage of this subject over decades. I believe strongly that editors will have trouble finding sources that don't say something that doesn't sound inflated or Wp:Peacock-y to an editor unfamiliar with the subject. The best sourced discount of the importance of Aahz is on p. 127 of Silcott (in a chapter called Florida Breaks), "...It's nothing that hasn't already been heard about first time E use" but in the next sentence, "Oz(sic) set the tone for the notable characteristic of Orlandoinian rave music..." And on P. 126, "the beginning of the scene." Aaahz, the Beechem and Decko's are covered.

There very likely just won't be any published reliable support that lessens the importance of that place in that city on the regional, national and international field at that time. An opinion that the importance is inflated is entirely understandable. A source even states that the Orlando dance music history is not well known because it was not well-documented, coverage of this subject has largely been overlooked, or too-late.

Remaining objective, and for reliably citing "recognized internationally," although I have still not completely reviewed several of the international sources that cover the subject, we can use any of the outside-of-Orlando sources you would like to or from those in my sandbox. Regardless, such language should be used in the least promotional way possible. In my view, it should apply to the building or the genre only.

View additional sources here

When searching for sources, consider that several sources use an alternate name or a misspelling for this subject (Aaahz, Oz, Beechem, Tabu, Zuma). Please note, I stay objective and true to the sources (as in no exaggerations or personal knowledge). This is the only reason I wrote on a topic in which I do have some previous knowledge. I was assigned an architecture report in college on this building and developed a fondness for it years before this type of music was even invented or I could remotely tolerate it. I include all relevant negative information (perhaps more-so than positive) to avoid any semblance of promotion of a topic or idea. The sources on the subject offer incredible detail but if you see something that sounds questionable (OR, Peacock, citation needed), I very much appreciate it being brought to my attention. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Recently Added The Face source (a defunct UK domestic magazine) for International recognition Johnvr4 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced content in the Late Night era: (1988–1994) Aahz section

Before I start removing original research from the 'Late Night era: (1988–1994) Aahz' section, is anyone able to add citations to reliable sources? We simply don't allow editors personal recollections per WP:V.

Also, there is a citation to "Beacham Theatre Returns! 1988. Brad Belletto." Is this a book, newspaper article, or other reliable source? - MrX 🖋 20:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: You will note I was adding additional sources when your message was written.

I want to say that source is a 1988 press release or news article draft announcing the opening of the latest dinner theater and a part time night club. I remember the passage was from this source. I have it too but I don't have it in front of me at the moment-It may be in my storage. A copy might be available at the Orange County History Center, or City of Orlando Historic Preservation Office.) Johnvr4 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I don't write of personal recollections. I did attend around 1990-91. I never even heard of DJ Lisa etc. until 25+ years later when I wrote the article. I was not there during the alleged raid, or even in that time period. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Johnvr4: Understood. I remember the raid, although I wasn't there that particular night. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: A few years ago, I did a bit of OR looking for detailed records at the various agencies (fire, police, DEA, MBI etc.) that would confirm what was reported by witnesses who knew about it. The agencies either don’t have records from back then (and?/) or can’t release them (or aren’t going to look). For deaths, A new FL law was passed after Dale Earnhardt (a race car driver) died that prevents release of certain records even if they had previously been released. I found the published names of overdose victims but since they may likely be living I removed that BLP info and that source.

The MBI is comprised of 18+ separate law enforcement agencies and that search went no where...see why There is some oral history at the Orange County Regional History Center mentioning a raid but it’s not what I’d call reliably published. It probably barely qualifies as an “oral history”.

What I thought was notable about the raid was that it didn’t stop the party. Allegedly, the raid was rumored beforehand. The raid happened and they shut the music down and turned on the lights. Masked agents and other people walked in (sounds like confidential informants) and picked others out of the crowd. Then they left and the music came back on. If informants were involved there might not be ever be public records on it--at least from how it was explained to me.

In the article, the part of the raid that mentioned the continuation of the night was already removed. The Beacham was raided by the police before as stated in the article. With another raid being mentioned, I didn’t think was a big deal to include this one. The fire chief also shut it down more than once for overcrowding or other violations. But no records were found... I didn’t include the other details. Just that it happened. Use your best judgment on inclusion. Perhaps someday there will be a better source. It seems new sources on the subject (however useful) come out approximately once or twice per year. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Added a new source for the Belletto’s management. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)