Talk:Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

however short-lived, i think there should be a mention of the tv show "Sherman Oaks" --71.112.183.85 06:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody completly changed the page and remove all the links. I like this version a bit better because it's got more information, but it reads like a poorly written pamphlet of the area. (No offense.) I'll see if I can find some census data to add. --Jack Schitt 10:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Arnold Schwarzeneggar movie Commando has a scene in the old Sherman Oaks Galleria mall. He swings from various decorations onto the elevator. I believe there was a night club/bar in the mall for the movie.

The video for "Free Falling" [1] by Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers was filmed at the corner of Ventura and Beverly Glen at what was formerly a hot dog shop. This is right next door to the florist that was used in Six Feet Under. --Frank Webber 02:03, 16 Feb 2008

"Black-ish" reveals that it's set in Sherman Oaks in the "Jacked o' Lantern" episode (Season 2, Episode 6). "Never Have I Ever" reveals that it's set in Sherman Oaks in the pilot episode (Season 1, Episode 1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.237.140 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

I'd like to get a source on "The Sherm." Where did you read FOX was making this? --75.50.225.198 (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Dip" closed/reopened[edit]

The Notable Residents section mentions that Borat's Azamat owns "The Dip" at Ventura and Beverly Glen. It recently closed and then reopened as a hot dog placed called "The Outfield". I believe the name includes "by The Dip" or some similar reference to the original name. I think there's another Dip location in Hollywood or something. I'll make the update soon unless someone disagrees or knows more than I.Agershon (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

http://www.shermanoaksnc.org/areamap http://www.shermanoaksnc.org/files/PDF/SONCMap2009.pdf

Here are maps of Sherman Oaks WhisperToMe (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the above links are dead. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affluence[edit]

Not only do the figures show that Sherman Oaks is a comparatively affluent community, but it also has that reputation in print. You can find references to the neighborhood's affluence here:

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lapl.org/docview/292395860/E5C1CB9161A54435PQ/3?accountid=6749 Under the plan, Councilman Joel Wachs would lose a large part of affluent Sherman Oaks, a base of his support, to [Zev Yaroslavsky]. In turn, Wachs' 2nd District, which extends from Studio City around Griffith Park to include Atwater and Mt. Washington, would gain a low-income area on the edge of downtown Los Angeles.

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lapl.org/docview/292990837/E5C1CB9161A54435PQ/5?accountid=6749 Now, some North Hollywood residents call the office's return to their community an example of politicians pandering to more affluent areas such as Sherman Oaks. The Sherman Oaks Homeowners Assn. praised the announcement that the office will be moved, but residents of Van Nuys and North Hollywood bitterly criticized the decision. They complained that parole offices in their less-affluent neighborhoods never generated the same swift political response.

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lapl.org/docview/282268433/E5C1CB9161A54435PQ/8?accountid=6749 Insurance settlements and disaster funding to repair earthquake damage in the hard-hit Sherman Oaks/Studio City area will fall up to $120 million short despite a massive infusion of government aid, according to a new study. So why have 2,100 residents of the affluent area signed a petition and threatened to sue to block Los Angeles' latest quake recovery effort?

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lapl.org/docview/292995715/E5C1CB9161A54435PQ/13?accountid=6749 Some of Los Angeles' most-affluent communities are in the 13th district of the proposed San Fernando Valley city council, an area that includes Sherman Oaks, Encino and Tarzana. Its homeowner groups are among the city's most powerful, and are eagerly courted by politicians.

Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been hashed out before, but I guess we can go over it again if consensus has changed. As I understand it, the question as to whether a neighborhood is affluent or not should be pinned to WP:Reliable sources, like any other fact. That is why I listed the statements above. Here is the decision that was rendered almost two years ago at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_districts_and_neighborhoods_of_Los_Angeles#Leads_in_articles_about_Los_Angeles_neighborhoods:
The result of this discussion was that the lead section of these articles should follow the approach set out in MOS:LEAD, which is that lead should summarise the main points of the article, and that emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable secondary sources.
There was a clear consensus to reject a formulaic approach, and to treat each case on its own merits. That means if the reliable secondary sources emphasise the ethnic or racial composition of a district, then the lead should convey that fact. Otherwise, it belongs in the body of the article.
This will mean that in some cases the ethnic composition may feature prominently in the leas, whereas on other cases it may be entirely absent from the lead.
(I closed this discussion per a request at WP:AN/RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the reputation of Sherman Oaks as an affluent neighborhood, I have one newer source that I can add: Andrew Blankstein, "Justin Bieber Investigated for Camera Incident," NBC News, May 13, 2014, in which is stated flatly that Sherman Oaks is "an affluent neighborhood of the San Fernando Valley." Yours in Wikidom, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Ezra Scharcz, "Suspicious Item Found Is a False Alarm," Canyon News, October 16, 2014, wherein he terms Sherman Oaks an "affluent neighborhood." Yours again, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could also add Australian Associated Press, "Critics Rave About Joel Edgerton's Gift," Daily Mail, August 9, 2015, which states that Sherman Oaks is a "leafy, affluent Los Angeles suburb." Still yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has handpicked several sources which refer to this city as "affluent". This city is not listed in any "top 10" or even "top 100" richest US cities. It is only richer than it's neighbors in the Los Angeles area. Being affluent in this instance is subjective POV, and bends the neutrality of this article, per WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL. My experience with the addition of "affluent" to articles is that it is nearly always vandalism added by real estate spammers. Let's reserve the word affluent for those handful of truely rich US cities, which this isn't. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, be that as it may, Sherman Oaks residents not only have quite a bit more income, on average, than people who live in other parts of the city, but Reliable sources have even used the very word, affluent, to describe it. Affluent seems to be an important characteristic to more than a few observers. Although I of course WP:Assume good faith on the part of all the editors, it is hard to see exactly why some seem to balk at describing places like Sherman Oaks and Encino as affluent, even though the sources tell us that they are indeed so. I would like to know the answer. If we have any sources that describe S.O. in any other economic terms, let's see them. It was said above that "My experience with the addition of 'affluent' to articles is that it is nearly always vandalism added by real estate spammers." That is possible (if somehow rushing to a heartfelt but unsubstantiated judgment), but in the case of this present article real-estate boosterism is definitely not a purpose, and my feelings are somewhat hurt by the accusation (poor me!): Simple description is the purpose. For example, I am sure that a reader who lives in Watts, Los Angeles, or Inglewood, California, or anywhere else, for that matter, would like to know just what kind of place is this "Sherman Oaks." Is it mired in poverty, or is it, hm, fairly well off? We shouldn't expect the reader to wade through some census figures in the body of the article when Reliable sources have already given the answer. Nevertheless, I naturally want Wikipedia to present articles that are the result of WP:Consensus, so I'll try to draft a more acceptable lead for the current one and hope that it will be acceptable. (I earlier tried to skate around the problem by adding the word "relatively," but somebody deleted that word.) Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I don't think "affluent" is necessary here. POV words like that should only be used for neighborhoods in cases where the neighborhood is overwhelmingly one thing or another with strong sourcing (i.e., consistently identified as a particularly wealthy area, or in some sort of "wealthiest" or "poorest" list). Sherman Oaks is certainly above average, but in the larger context of LA it still has fair mix of housing. The cited Times sources even says it's "about average for the county." OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all. There seems to be an WP:Edit war going on over use of the word affluent, some editors saying it is a "real estate" term. Well, I personally disagree with that assessment, because I have been in Sherman Oaks, and I consider it to be affluent, although I have no real estate interests there, or in fact anywhere, but my opinion or anybody else's really doesn't matter. All that matters are the sources. As a compromise I deleted the word affluent from the lead, but this community is definitely known as being affluent, and some very good reporters have not hesitated to say so, and in very certain terms, too, so I inserted their opinions into the body of the story, leaving it out of the lead. I had hoped that would satisfy my fellow editors, and I hope those who object to using the word affluent will agree that the description should be used somewhere in the body of the piece — because it is a key part of understanding just how different Sherman Oaks is from most of the other communities in Los Angeles. Would it help to move this storied term lower down in the article? What could another solution be, short of a meltdown? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BeenAroundAWhile: Why is there a need for it at all in the article? The term "affluent" is appropriate in articles about neighbourhoods that undisputably are affluent, such as Pacific Palisades (with a median income around 2,5x that of Sherman Oaks; $168K compared to $69K), but not in articles about neighbourhoods that according to available current statistics are "just" average middleclass/upper middleclass neighbourhoods. Thomas.W talk 15:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The economic makeup of a neighborhood is one of the most salient facts about it. S.O. is not the richest area in the world, and the sources say so, but it would be destructive of Wikipedia's mission to downplay the fact that S.O. (and some other Los Angeles City communities) are, as the sources say, generally upscale financially. We can't ignore what the sources tell us. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tell us that Bel-Air had a median income in 2008 of $208K, Beverly Crest $169K, Pacific Palisades $168K, Encino $78K, Toluca Lake $73K and Sherman Oaks $69K. Which tells us that Bel-Air, Beverly Crest and Pacific Palisades are "affluent", but the others aren't. Thomas.W talk 15:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this. I know only that reputable sources have labeled S.O. (and other Los Angeles communities) as "affluent." Shall we take this to a WP:Dispute resolution, and, if so, how? And do you want to do it, or shall I, or shall we agree on just how? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to push this against everyone else here, so it's not a case of you against just me, that is one editor against a single other editor. Which means that WP:Dispute resolution doesn't apply. So you either accept that you're not going to get it into the article(s) or start a request for comment about your proposed changes. Thomas.W talk 16:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, before I received your most recent comment, I notified User:BrownHairedGirl that she has been mentioned here, so I will wait to see what she, as an administrator, has to say. Otherwise, I'll be glad to start a RFC and hope you will agree on the wording. It won't be right away though. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page history shows that you over the past 8-9 days have been reverted by five different editors, including one IP, which shows that there is a clear consensus against your changes. But you still keep adding the claim about Sherman Oaks being "affluent", in what is nothing but slo-mo edit warring... Thomas.W talk 16:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, User:BeenAroundAWhile posted[2] on my talk page looking for guidance, so here I am. For what it's worth.

I have read the discussion above, but intentionally not read the article -- I wanted to see these issues how the active editors are framing them.

From what y'all describe, there is a range of sources describing the prosperity of the area in difft ways. Some compare it to the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the region, while other compare it to its immediate neighbours. Unsurprisingly, those difft tests give different answers.

It seems to me that this is relatively simple to resolve. In the body of the article, discuss the different views per WP:BALANCE, weighting them according to WP:WEIGHT. Remember, en.wp doesn't decide what it is a "correct" view; it just reports the views set out in the sources.

Per MOS:LEAD, the lede should summarise the body. That summary will inevitably exclude some of the nuances, but should not misrepresent the realities of the situation. If you cannot agree a lede which genuinely summarises the spectrum of views, then either omit it from the lede or note something like "there are varying view of the prosperity of the area".

Hope this helps. Now I will read the article and see how those principles might apply to this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the article. AFAICS, the current version[3] contains nothing on the economy of the area, or on its prosperity. So there is nothing to summarise in the lede.
You editors are approaching this the wrong way round. Instead of arguing about the lede, start by writing a properly referenced, WP:BALANCEd section in the body of the article. Use reliable sources, and don't give too much weight to those sources which describe the area's economic standing in a one-word mention as part of a sentence about something else. Then see if you can summarise it.
Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: This discussion isn't just about the lead, it's also about adding a bunch of sources with claims about Sherman Oaks being an "affluent" neighbourhood, all of them old sources that have very little to do with the current situation, since all current data shows that S.O. no longer is an affluent neighbourhood. Material that has been removed by five different users over the past 8-9 days, only to be added back again by BeenAroundAWhile, who seems to be the only one who wants it in the article... Thomas.W talk 18:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you all start by using this talk page to list and summarise what sources you have? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise it BeenAroundAWhile is the only one who wants to portray Sherman Oaks as an "affluent" neighbourhood, almost desperately scouring the 'Net looking for sources to support their claim, but only finding old ones, while the rest of us don't want it mentioned at all. The only information that is needed is the median income, and it's already included both in this article and in all articles about other neighbourhoods in LA, and also in all articles about incorporated places in that area. And it's not just this article it's also Encino, Los Angeles and Toluca Lake, Los Angeles, two nearby neighbourhoods. Thomas.W talk 19:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be blunt here, Thomas.W.
Googling for sources to support a one word label is a very poor form of research. Insisting on a place in the lede for that word is inappropriate without supporting material in the body.
But it is equally bizarre to say that "the only information that is needed is the median income". Really? One figure, at one point in time? No historical data or local comparisons, however well-sourced? I see no policy basis for objecting to expansion of the economic profile of the area.
And all of you should stop edit-warring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: There's plenty of information about economic profile etc in the articles. The median income is a local comparison, since it's available for all neighbourhoods, cities and towns in the US, all as far as I have seen from the same year (currently 2008, in LA at least). There's also a lot of other information in the demographics/population section of all of the articles, including age profile, race/ethnicity, language, number of households below the poverty line, type of households etc etc. So the only ones who, in my experience, feel a need to paste a label saying "affluent" on a neighbourhood/town/city are people who want to sell real-estate there... Thomas.W talk 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with "affluent" is that it is inexact, vacuous, subjective, and has little use in an encyclopedia, per words to watch. If I looked around I could probably find a reliable source which describes the restaurants in Sherman Oaks as "snazzy", and the country club as "top notch". No doubt I could find reliable sources which describe some LA neighborhoods as "sketchy" and "ghetto". Let's present the demographic data in an encyclopedic way without any editorializing, and then let our readers make up their own minds how snooty the place is. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. Thomas.W talk 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)@Thomas.W: there may well be lots of info in the demographics/population sections, but nothing direct on economic profile other than the latest median income data. You yourself wrote above that this "no longer is an affluent neighbourhood", which implies that you are aware of a decline in the area's wealth; but that is not covered in the article.
Adding that historical data would improve the article. So would adding an explicit comparison with median income in other areas, rather than relying on users to open up that other articles.
I have explicitly written above that adding a single-word tag to a complex picture is a bad idea, so I don't know what prompts you to continue to fixate on that point. Speculating on another editor's motives is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith, especially when you yourself are actually opposing the article's expansion.
I strongly urge both User:Thomas.W and User:BeenAroundAWhile to stop squabbling about one word, stop edit-warring, and start collaborating on expanding the article's coverage of the area's economy and economic history. Otherwise you are both going to go down a path which will eventually lead to WP:SANCTIONS. I will issue some warnings for edit-warring, and then leave you both to it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Sherman Oaks was closer to being "affluent" 25-30 years ago than it is today, and a mention of that is merited, but in the history section, not in the demographics section. Also please note that I'm not opposed to expanding the article, but the current dicussion/slo-mo edit-warring has nothing to do with that, it's only about trying to portray S.O., and a couple of other neighbourhoods nearby, as something it/they no longer is/are. Thomas.W talk 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That one word, "affluent", is a widely used form of vandalism on US city articles. Real estate spammers add it all the time. I reverted this one (not by a spammer) yesterday. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree with Magnolia more. The term "affluent" conveys no factual information. It is an opinion. There is not a widely accepted way of determining affluence. Is it median home price? Median income? In exact English, terming a municipality as affluent actually means the municipal corporation itself is wealthy. Words that add no factual information to an article bit simply make the subject of the article sound better have a name on Wikipedia--PEACOCK. No matter what demographic info you add to the article, and that was a very good suggestion from BrownHairedGirl, I would still oppose using the term "affluent" in the Lede due to its inexact and peacock nature. John from Idegon (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with User:Thomas.W, who I have disagreed with in the past, he is correct, the term gives no useful information and if based on quintiles of income, it would not be in the top quintile for Los Angeles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am presenting a possible solution here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherman_Oaks%2C_Los_Angeles&type=revision&diff=700469747&oldid=700466652. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Affluent" is an empty word. It is purely subjective, and the numbers are what actually tell the story. Scr★pIronIV 18:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way to do it since you ought to know by now that your edits are not supported by others here. You have to get support from other editors before making the edit. Thomas.W talk 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer anybody following this discussion to WP:BRD. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you drop the stick and stop your slo-mo edit-war. There's no support for your edit here, or anywhere else... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised this issue is being revisited two years later - particularly with the comment that others should assume "good faith" regarding disruptive editing. But since it has been revisited...it should be noted how this situation was resolved.
The user was warned on multiple occasions here and here and here to stop with the disruptive editing that went against community concensus. An Administrator got involved and this behavior ultimately got the user suspended in 2017. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Your attention is called to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment, where a discussion is being held concerning the Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Executive Tower[edit]

Should the Valley Executive Tower have its own article? It houses offices of City National Bank and still or may have used to house Fox Sports Radio. Busition (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sherman_Oaks,_Los_Angeles&oldid=1205274447"