Talk:Ventura Freeway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Popular culture

I am concerned about the inclusion of more unsourced or poorly sourced material in popular culture sections. The burden of proof is on the person including material like this. These sections tend to fill up with trivia, which is not what Wikipedia is. --Rschen7754 05:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The active word here is "tend." You are making an accusation on a tendency. How about dealing with what we have before us. We have four entries, none of my creation by the way. Previously, causing an edit war, started by User: Nikkimaria. You, User:Rschen7754 have joined in this mess. First the "In popular culture" template was placed in the article, by User: SummerPhD which attracted deletionists. Within 7 minutes of the template being posted, the entire section was deleted by Nikki. Does this sound like a conspiracy or what? When I reverted, saying I disagree with the definition of this material as unnecessary trivia, it was reverted because it was unsourced. First, that was a lie because a couple of items were sourced (meaning Nikki didn't really look at what was being deleted). Second, that is a different argument. I reverted and sourced the items that did not have sources. By the way, its not too hard to source stuff that is factually true. All you have to do is google the terms used and magic, sources come up. Now I am not engaging in an edit war. I am solving problems, adding to the content. Adding sources. But Nikki returned and deleted the now sourced material claiming a third new argument, that the source(s) were primary sourced. Again I reverted and while I was in the process of improving the sources, it was reverted again within 4 minutes. I reverted and added sources. Less than one minute after I added the third source, Rschen comes in to remove the content with now a fourth argument to remove the content, SPS. While one source was a blogspot entry, with a photo of the new grave location for Terry (dog) at the heart of the issue, the second source quotes from an actual book. You'd notice that if you had checked the source in the few seconds of consideration you gave your edit, as in, you didn't really look, did you? The key point is, the policy argument changes on each reversion to achieve the same goal--remove content.

Well let me direct you to the policy statement on trivia WP:TRIVIA#Guidance "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. Otherwise, see if the trivia section contains sources for a particular aspect of the subject of the article, and then consider using the section items as basis for a different article discussing that aspect. Items that duplicate material elsewhere in the article, have no support from reliable sources, or lack real importance can be removed in most cases.

Research may be necessary to give each fact some context or to add references. Any speculative or factually incorrect entries should be removed, entries outside the scope of the article should be moved to other articles, and entries such as "how-to" material or tangential/irrelevant facts may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether." These items are now sourced, a couple of them multiple sourced. There should be no argument to them being speculative or factually incorrect. They all fit the subject of the article. There is no excuse to remove them. Trackinfo (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If it's so easy, perhaps you could do it yourself and spare us the effort. --Rschen7754 06:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I did. If you weren't in such a rush to delete the content, you would have sees the sources already attached when you removed the content. If you object to the source, you could google as below. In less than a minute, you obviously didn't even try. Trackinfo (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, especially WP:BURDEN. --Rschen7754 07:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:V discourages content that is unverifiable, ie: "there are space aliens watching us," not currently presented as unverified. Even WP:BURDEN states: "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." (emphasis mine) --Oakshade (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, it seems that you do not understand the policy at all. Verifiability, not truth. --Rschen7754 07:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely familiar with the policy and have seen it misused and misunderstood many times. "Verifiability," as WP:V states in its first sentence: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." (emphasis not mine but in the policy) This content was easily checked that the information comes from a reliable source. If the content was "The Ventura Freeway has zombies living under it," you'd have a point as that could not be checked that the information comes from a reliable source.--Oakshade (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They can check, because they have the citation right there. --Rschen7754 08:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They can also check in online sources, print sources and other kinds of archives, not only by citations "right there." --Oakshade (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This is easily verifiable and non controversial content. It took only seconds to find the source about Toto [1] and the Tori Amos song source is from the song itself, but also secondary sources for those who would - incorrectly - claim it's a "primary source."[2]--Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Trackinfo, first, before accusing someone of lying, you ought to really look at the diff. This is the material I removed as "unsourced"; none of it included sources. Second, if you want to restore unsourced material that is disputed, you need to include appropriate reliable sources immediately, per WP:BURDEN - it's not others' job to do that for you. Third, that we can point to multiple policies being violated by this content is the fault of the content, not of the people pointing out why it should be removed. Fourth, read the quote you provide: items that do not include reliable sources or are not significant can be removed, and that's what happened here. Fifth, only 2-3 of the sources now included could possibly be considered reliable secondary sources, one of which (Moonwalk page 79) does not support the material it's citing and the others of which do not indicate the significance of the material; furthermore, none of the citations for that section are complete. Finally, your "conspiracy" theory is unfounded and, like the rest of your personal commentary, inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I miscounted. Only one of four items in this edit you made was sourced. Still that does not equal zero. That does mean that you DID factually remove a sourced item. Thus your statement that they were all unsourced was a lie. Now you may not like the source, we can have a discussion on that. I know nothing about the subject, I didn't post it, it is sourced to a book. Did you find the book to read the source? I didn't think so. And where does it say to delete first and (not) discuss later? If you question it, post it here in talk, other minds can contribute. When you delete, it just disappears unless someone like me notices and rescues it. Trackinfo (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Further, in this edit you removed two sourced items citing the same BURDEN policy. How exactly does that work? You obviously can do a lot of research and clear consideration of content in 4 minutes. You must be a remarkable person. Trackinfo (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite. I made no statement that everything in the initial edit was unsourced, although as the citation included there did not support the text it technically was. The edit in which I stated the material was unsourced removed only material that was unsourced. Your accusation of lying is thus false; please withdraw it. And yes, I did find the book to read the source, which is how I knew above that that citation doesn't support what it's citing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

While this yes-you-did, no-I-didn't continues, I've restored the "In popular culture template. As I tried to indicate, this is an indiscriminate list, not a sourced discussion. Yes, the indiscriminate list entries are source. Great. It is, however, still an indiscriminate list, rather than a sourced discussion detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture. I have no doubt there are thousands of songs, books, TV shows, movies, bubble gum wrappers, dog memorials, etc. that mention this road, occur on it (near it or where it would eventually be built). What we have currently is a random selection of those with two criteria for inclusion: they are somehow connected to the road and an editor thought of them. If we had this discussion over at God, you'd be arguing that we should include the extensive list of a Joan Osbourne song, the "_____ Almighty" movies and a couple of science fiction novels, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of entries from before 1995. This road is a lot younger than the concept of a powerful guy in the sky, of course, but the list is just as indiscriminate. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as this content isn't indiscriminate but very discriminate as all are specifically related to this article's topic and found in sources. Interesting argument about God and Joan Osbourne but that doesn't apply to this article just as it doesn't apply to King Kong being listed in the "In popular culture" section of the Empire State Building article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This list is indiscriminate. Yes, King Kong is listed because the films had a significant cultural impact. When a 50 foot inflatable of Micheal Jackson or Toto is added to the road, you'll have a meaningful comparison.

Independent reliable sources certainly mention that "One of Us" talks about God. How many would you like? In any case, her song is of trivial importance to the subject. Similarly, such sourcing exists for God being mentioned in works by everyone from Shakespeare to Stephen King and everyone in between. Again, the overwhelming majority of them are trivial. Similarly, mentioning the road, in passing, in a song is clearly trivial.

Tori Amos mentions it in passing. Great. Let's get started on adding "It's the End of the World As We Know It" to Leonard Bernstein, Leonid Brezhnev, Lenny Bruce, Lester Bangs, Birthday party, cheesecake, jellybean and several hundred articles.

Jackson wrote a song while driving down this road. This trivial fact has had absolutely no impact on popular culture, the road or popular culture's interpretation of the road. Hell, the song's article doesn't see this as a significant fact about the song. But, clearly, this is a major fact about this road, bringing in tourists to see the road where Jackson wrote the song. (Unlike, say, the connection between King Kong and the Empire State Building. I'm certain that didn't draw any attention to the building...)

Toto's grave was destroyed by the building of the freeway. John Sartain was buried at what is now a parking lot on the campus of Temple University. His headstone is part of the riprap near the Betsy Ross Bridge. Should this be in John Sartain, Temple University, Betsy Ross Bridge, Broad Street (Philadelphia), ... Oh, but Toto's grave is discussed in two blogs (and not at all in a site selling a book). (We do have photos of a marker that says the dog's grave was destroyed by construction of the highway, but we'd rather say it was paved over by the highway.)

And then there's America. At least we have the completely crap site songfacts as a source. It tells us absolutely nothing about any connection between the song and the road, but I guess the name had a major impact on culture, the road and stuff. Actually, no. "...while his family was driving down the coast from Vandenberg Air Force Base near Lompoc, California where they had a flat tire. While his father changed the tire, he and his brother stood by the side of the road and watched the clouds and saw a road sign for "Ventura"." (sourced and everything at Ventura Highway) So they thought of the title while they were on a highway with a sign for Ventura, California. Major cultural impact. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No comments? I'll just yank the whole crap section, I guess. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because you had the last word in a talk section, does not mean you opinion stands nor represents consensus or that consensus agrees with you. It just means you were the last person to type. --Oakshade (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Great. Let's take this one point at a time. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Ventura Highway"

This song, in addition to being an indiscriminate inclusion, is sourced to a forum comment and might or might not have anything whatsoever to do with the Ventura Freeway that this article is supposed to be about. If it is about the Freeway, which no source we have confirms, it is a passing mention, as the song is about, "shapes of clouds" and "(living) in Omaha as a kid and... images of going to California." It does not, in any way, contribute to "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture." WP:IPC Should the thousands of songs mentioning "God" be listed in God? Anyone care to argue that this should remain? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Assburger REDIRECT TO Asperger syndrome. You as an experienced wikipedian should know, we don't always put in things because they are technically correct. We have to deal with a public that will look for things and we responsibly should have the correct thing in the place they will look. From there, we help them find the truth. So what if some musician in Nebraska didn't know the difference and still wrote a hit song about it. An equally uninformed member of the public will find this and will get an education. Isn't that what we are here for? This is the place it belongs. Trackinfo (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(This is not a "hit song about it". It was a hit, but NO ONE said it is about the Ventura Freeway.) So, if I understand what you are saying, a song that does not have anything to do with the subject of the article should be here because you believe some people might believe it is about the subject? As an experienced Wikipedian, I know original research is more than just a bad idea. Someone curious as to what the song is about might want to read "Ventura Highway" and find out. Reading what we have here, OTOH, would seem to imply the song is about the Freeway. Someone "looking for it" here will see it and confirm their misunderstanding. That's more than not "technically correct". That's flat out wrong. New tagline: "Wikipedia, some of it's true." I ran across a guy online who believes Barbie dolls are modeled after Heidi Klum. Should we add Barbie to Heidi Klum? Perhaps hundreds of articles about hotels in California should discuss "Hotel California"? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hotel California#Conjectures does discuss it. Camarillo State Mental Hospital does discuss it, as does The Beverly Hills Hotel. Its called cross referencing. And the song Ventura Highway hatnotes back to this article. It has nothing to do with your "some of it is true," all of it is aimed at delivering the truth. Yes, you do have to actually read the text to see that it is true. Trackinfo (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Hotel California" discusses what "Hotel California" is about, much as "Ventura Highway" discusses "Ventura Highway". No one would argue that should not be the case.

Camarillo State Mental Hospital discusses its possible connection to "Hotel California" because the source discusses that connection unambiguously. That makes sense.

The Beverly Hills Hotel doe not discuss "Hotel California" (the song). It says that the cover of the album is a photo of the hotel. Now it's even sourced.[3]

In stark contrast, we do not have a source connecting "Ventura Highway" to the Freeway. This would be equivalent to adding a "cross reference" to every article in Category:Hotels_in_California.

We do not have a source connecting "Ventura Highway" to the Freeway. We have sources saying it is about something else entirely. It's a highway near Ventura. We do not have a source connecting Hilton Waterfront Beach Resort to "Hotel California". We have sources saying it is about something else entirely. It's a hotel in California.

NONE of the connection with this article is true. Yes, a hatnote makes sense: Two articles which, though completely unrelated might be confused. That is not what we are talking about. The inclusion of "Ventura Highway" in "Ventura Freeway In popular culture" makes it clear -- incorrectly clear, but clear -- that the song is the Freeway in popular culture. It isn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the forum posting pseudo-source and clarified that the song is not about the subject of this article. The section still fails to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, meriting the tag. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"A Sorta Fairytale"

This song, in addition to being an indiscriminate inclusion, is a passing mention, similar to numerous passing mentions in, for example, "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)". The song is about "real people and real events...Scarlet, comes to see her friend who's a fading porn star..." and yada, yada, yada. It is not about the Freeway. It does not, in any way, contribute to "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture." WP:IPC Should the thousands of songs mentioning "God" be listed in God? Anyone care to argue that this should remain? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've clarified that the song is not about the freeway, merely making passing mention of it. The section still fails to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, meriting the tag. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Terry the dog

The dog's grave was, according to two blogs, destroyed during the construction of the highway. Again, does John Sartain's grave belong in Temple University, Betsy Ross Bridge, Broad Street (Philadelphia), or all three? In any case, how does our blog sourced misstatement about the dog's grave in any way contribute to "Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture" WP:IPC? It doesn't. Anyone care to argue that this should remain? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• With all of these all you're doing is putting up a gigantic WP:ALLORNOTHING argument as a method to decide content. No, this isn't the God article and to compare the Ventura Freeway to that topic which has literally millions of references to the concept in various forms is a colossal apples to oranges comparison. I can't believe I have to explain this but here it goes. When there's a topic like God that has millions of words written about it in all different aspects, there simply isn't the space in the God article to include references in culture, no less the mentions in culture are far too numerous to list with their descriptions. That doesn't mean WP "bans" cultural references to topics. As a matter of fact, the Semetic god Dagon, an article topic that would be impossible to list cultural references to, we have the Dagon in popular culture article. Perhaps you'd like to start a Ventura Freeway in popular culture article? Or you just don't like popular cultural references in general which is fine. Most editors on WP like including cultural references to topics. I would suggest to you to start an RfC requesting the banning of cultural references in this and all articles. But to start some kind of meta "ban popular cultural references" agenda with a freeway article is just weird. --Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• This article caught attention when I used it in my nomination of the TfD for the Tag. The tag, that has been reinserted, attracts EXPLETIVE DELETEDs who like to delete content. So a freeway article has become a location to fight the battle over the whole principle of deleting In popular culture anywhere, which is apparently the desired ALLORNOTING agenda. Trackinfo (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that you've both had a bunch to say about me and people like me, my hidden motives and my apparent wish to ban everything that is good and decent in Wikipedia, maybe we can get back to the topic?

No, I don't wish to start Ventura Freeway in popular culture to collect various trivial mentions of the highway, mentions of things that someone might think are the highway but aren't and dog graves that blogs say were destroyed when the highway was built. If you'd like to talk about whether or not the various items collected in Dagon in popular culture actually details the topic's impact upon popular culture or if it's just an indiscriminate collections of trivia, that article's talk page is calling out to you.

Now back to Terry the dog. Do we have reliable sources for this now? I see four sources cited. We have Keister, Douglas (2010). Forever L. A. Gibbs Smith. p. 141. ISBN 1423616537. which I haven't looked at yet. Next is the blog, http://allanellenberger.com/toto-finds-a-home-at-hollywood-forever/. It's a blog. Next, there's a page selling a book, http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17290245-i-toto. The page itself doesn't make the claim we're trying to support. The book, said to have been written before the construction in question, cannot be supporting the claim. Finally, we have the blog, http://hungrytigerpress.blogspot.com/2011/10/toto-tomb.html. It's a blog. Comments on the sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To SummerPhD's defense, at least he uses his brain to carry on an intelligent argument. If we actually held a discussion about things, rational arguments could take place, which is the way this place should work. The others that his tag attracts are not "like" him. They don't use their brain, they simply react with the delete key in edits they carefully consider for the length of time it takes to highlight text. Mark beginning, mark end. Poof, its gone. All of the content we are discussing now has already been completely wiped out before. Without constant monitoring we could wake up to find half of wikipedia gone if they had their way. Trackinfo (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The "popular culture" section falls under WP:TRIVIA and not many people really care about the pop culture section, anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is an often misunderstood guideline that generally encourages the inclusion of soured content in the body of the text rather than simply a list of facts, ie avoiding having in the James Monroe article "Monrovia is named after Monroe; it is the only foreign city named after a US President." as a bullet point in a list rather than in the text of the article which that content is actually located in. WP:TRIVIA specifically states "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page."--Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The dog's grave counts as miscellaneous info. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The section still fails to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, meriting the tag and, IMO, removal of this miscellaneous trivial detail. For the moment, I've clarified that the sources do not say what the section previously claimed. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing about WP:TRIVIA is that when trivia sections were deprecated under it, many of them, instead of being deleted, morphed into "Popular culture" sections. Getting around the letter of the law is an old game, but that doesn't mean it's proper. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"In popular culture" stuff that isn't in the article, shouldn't be, but is more relevant than the shit in there now.

While the edit war continues anew, a few thoughts...

At least three notable people were arrested for infractions on the Freeway. A notable person was killed on the Freeway. Two notable people had land seized to build the Freeway. Two notable former locations are now under the Freeway. Two serial killers disposed of bodies on the Freeway. One may have killed a victim on the Freeway.

All of this pales in comparison to a song that has no connection to the Freeway, one that mentions it in passing and dog's grave that was nearby. Really? No, of course not.

As the consensus template explains, IPC sections should not be simple listings of appearances (I imagine this covers the non-appearance as well). Rather, if the section is to exist at all, it should explain the subject's impact on popular culture. If you don't like the template, feel free to open a new deletion discussion on it. Otherwise, please explain why you wish to ignore the consensus. (I have not reviewed any of the current battle and support neither side. You both need to discuss this.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And yeah, I know, "don't template the regulars". The regulars shouldn't need them. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd support the removal of the material - although no doubt relevant to the article on the dog itself, etc., it feels like trivia in connection to the freeway. Hchc2009 (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• One line mentioning "Ventura" in a Tori Amos song, and the destruction of the grave of a dog are encyclopaedic? Move over! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You forgot the song that isn't about the Highway. Surely that is important? - SummerPhD (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

One line mentioning it, important? Not in the slightest. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, since we're mid-edit war here, this is the version being discussed (Toto's grave, a passing mention in a Tori Amos song and a song by America that is NOT about the subject of the article). - SummerPhD (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but suspect that even as this fascinating discussion takes place, there are song writers stretching the boundaries of their abilities in order to name-drop some local highway, with wikipedia in mind. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Tagging "In popular culture" section, again

This section does not "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances", it is a simple listing of an appearance (apparently), as the tag discusses. I have restored the tag. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Being the inspiration for an extremely popular culturally significant song that's on worldwide playlists rotations over forty decades after its recording is in itself an impact on popular culture.--Oakshade (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the simple fact that no one has said the song is about the Freeway (see below), the section does not "explain the subject's impact on popular culture". The song is about clouds. The name came from a sign that might be connected to the Freeway -- or not. Impact on popular culture? That belongs to the grumpy old man he had met while his dad was stationed in Biloxi, Mississippi at Keesler Air Force Base, the "alligator lizards in the air", cold winters in Omaha and other things actually mentioned -- in passing -- in the song. Adding the song to Biloxi, cloud, lizard, etc. would be monumentally stupid because those things are mentioned in the song and the song is about them according to unambiguous statements by the author. Instead, the song uses a word from a sign that might have been on, near or referred to this Freeway, so this is the Freeway having an impact on popular culture... brilliant. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ventura Highway" again

Right now, the section states, "The group America had a top 10 hit in 1972 with the song "Ventura Highway" which was written by Dewey Bunnell after traveling on U.S. 101 near Ventura."Cummings, Stephen D. (1998). The Dixification of America. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 4. ISBN 0275962083. Page 4 of the book does not mention the song or any highways or freeways. Pge 3, however, says:

"In 1972 the rock group America had a top-ten hit with a song called "Ventura Highway." Reportedly band member Dewey Bunnell wrote the song after traveling on U.S. 101 near Ventura, an hour's drive up the coast from Los Angeles."

I am correcting the reference for the page number. Additionally, there's this "reportedly" thing. This LATimes article quotes Bunnell directly:

That's when Bunnell latched onto an old memory of the Pacific Coast Highway...."One time, it was 1963 when I was in seventh grade, we got a flat tire and we're standing on the side of the road and I was staring at this highway sign. It said 'Ventura' on it and it just stuck with me. It was a sunny day and the ocean there, all of it."

I have two problems here. To the best of my knowledge, the Ventura Freeway (SR134) is not part of the Pacific Coast Highway (SR1). This conflicts with the current source. I cannot imagine a sign on the Ventura Freeway saying simply "Ventura". More likely, it would seem, would be a sign on SR1 for Ventura. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

While being the influence on an extremely popular endearing song would be have a significant lasting influence on popular culture, there seems to be some conflict amongst existing sources as to whether the actual stretch of the Ventura Freeway is what the songwriter was referring to. While the section of the 101 "near Ventura" is the Ventura Freeway, another source points to an area in Santa Barbara county which is not. With this uncertainty as of now I won't have issue if this is removed for the popular culture section. However I would advise a mention of the song somewhere in the article as it is widely associated with the Ventura Freeway.--Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)