Talk:Sex and the City

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex and the City article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Cohen, Noam (January 31, 2011). "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List". The New York Times.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cashwestcott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious material sourced to the Daily Mail removed

I tagged this as needing a citation, but then I looked into the history of the article and found that it was originally sourced to a tabloid before someone removed the citation, and then someone else added an irrelevant citation that had nothing to do with the content.[1][2][3][4][5] The material is unsourced, and for years it was dubiously sourced to the Daily Mail; no one since 2010 has been able to locate a better source. So I have removed it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article critique Week 3

The article is relatively neutral, but some of the sources caught my attention. Under the reception section, the author cites quotes and rankings from ABC News, Glamour magazine, etc. as examples of criticism towards the show. It is difficult to see these sources as being "reliable" especially since their main genre is not necessarily literature. For example, the author of the ABC character ranking article is not a true literary critic, so citing her ranking as an example of critical reception seems to be slightly inaccurate. The bias is not noted within the Wikipedia article either. However, the content of the Wikipedia article itself is all related to the main topic and nicely organized. Hcw5 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The title of the show, movies and book is "Sex AND the City" NOT "Sex IN the City"

Please correct this. It says Sex in the City several times both in the text and in the headings. That is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.183.186.98 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a case of Mandela effect:

Sex in the City - Intro

Sex and the City by David Brodsky

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Versions for Syndication TV Broadcast

It would be nice if it was specified that the versions of the show that are broadcast nowadays on cable television are heavily edited for time (a.k.a. censored). Many people who have never watched the show might not know that. They should be advised, since the changes severely affect the quality of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.137.84 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism only from the left???

Sorry, the show glorifies sexual activities and moral decay. I guess you can find many right-wing, conservative, christian voices who have a massive problem with this show. Why not giving them a voice in the article??

62.226.73.46 (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia includes coverage from independent reliable sources. If there is coverage from such sources that we don't include, one likely reason is that no one has added it. You are someone, IP editor. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Brady

FYI, the Steve Brady article has recently been redirected here, after it was proposed for deletion. I can't say I was a fan of Sex and the City, but I know enough about it to know that Steve Brady is a notable character and probably does deserve his own page. But I also know that because the show is a bit older, sources may be more difficult to come by. If anyone in the future decides to attempt to restore the Steve Brady article (with reliable sources to show it established WP:GNG, not just primary sources like the article had before), I did a quick search for a couple sources that could get you started. There are more out there for anyone inclined to do some digging...

Additionally, for anyone with a Newsbank or Lexis Nexis account, here are some offline sources you could access (if you need me to provide a copy of the full article in the future, message me):

"Naperville mom of 'Sex and the City' star says, 'He's doing what he loves'" June 1, 2008 | Naperville Sun, The (includes 12 weeklies) (IL) Author: Paige Winfield | Page: 4 | Section: AROUND TOWN
"Acting his age; Area native hits his stride on hit HBO series" June 27, 2001 | Naperville Sun, The (includes 12 weeklies) (IL) Author: Michael Kapellas | Page: 36 | Section: NEWS

Thanks. — Hunter Kahn 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the racial and national identities of SATC characters

I have edited the description of the television show to indicate that the main characters are "four white American women." I deeply enjoyed Sex and the City and think it is one of the greatest shows of all time on television. However, there was a critique of the show that all of the main protagonists were white women living their lives in a city of vast racial and cultural diversity. I think it is only appropriate to name the specificity of the characters' racial and national identities- hence use of the words "white" and "American." See the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Waiting_to_Exhale as an example of how racial specificity is named. Indigo-Violet7 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR sumary: The lead section of the article should summarize the main points of the article. The article should summarize what the sources say. There is too little in the article discussing their race and nationality to merit inclusion in the lead.

It's a matter of weight. There is one source discussing the total lack of BIPOC main characters and zero discussing that they were American. Against that, you are introducing the material to the initial description of the show in the lead. While the whiteness of the show is certainly a valid discussion to have in general and, with WP:WEIGHT in mind, it does belong in the "Criticism" section.

By comparison, similar valid discussions can be had (and similarly sourced) about hundreds of other shows -- Friends leaps to mind, along with Mad About You, Cheers/Frasier, Northern Exposure, etc., without even beginning to look at the 1970s (the battlefield in MASH seems to have been 100% white Americans vs. Koreans. Additionally, we have the "white savior narrative" and whitewashing in (mostly) film, but needn't describe the main characters as "white" in the leads for Noah, The Last Samari and hundreds of other films (though, again, sourced discussion is appropriate for the criticism sections). (Irrelevant to the article, but there is certainly no shortage of single-race groups of friends in the U.S. Should the show reflect a segregated reality?)

We have no sources at all discussing that the main characters are all Americans. Your observation that they are is not appropriate to the lead of the article. The lead should summarize the main points of the article. Material that is not part of the sourced discussion in the article doesn't belong there. (Irrelevant again, but there is no shortage of single-nationality groups of friends in the U.S.)

The counter-point here would be that they are all women. However, note that the show is about women's sexuality, with frequent plots revolving around other topics that would not work with groups of men (Miranda feeling looked down on career-wise because of her sex, Samantha's occasions of the sexual aggressor upending heteronormative societal expectations, ventures into a lesbian relationship, etc.). That they are all women is a central point of the show. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age in America where police violence and other forms of racism are still so prevalent, there has been a strong national call among progressives that as a country we should be working on being more explicitly anti-racist. The first step in this project is to be able to name race and racial identities. An important anti-racist project is to be able to name white racial identity and whiteness. All Americans and all who live in America are racialized. So step one in fostering anti-racist cultures is to name race in a-matter-of-fact way. We have to take account of race in order to get to the work of addressing racism. All of that to say, my edit is not a critique per se of the show, it is an important, simple descriptor of the protagonists of SATC. In shows and other media that feature Black characters, for instance, the fact that they are Black is named. Part of the problem of our racialized reality in America is that whiteness is rarely named. White is seen as "neutral, "universal." Whiteness is not neutral; it is highly specific. White womanhood, as depicted in SATC, is particular. White women's experiences are not universal to all women. This misconception is demonstrated here in your reply to my rationale for my edit, that the four characters in SATC are all "women." They are not neutral. The experiences they have as depicted in the show are not necessarily universal to all women. These four characters are affluent, white American women whose experiences are particular to that demographic. Therefore it should be named. Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha are depicted as white American women. We need to be able to say that clearly and simply in 2020 America. Indigo-Violet7 (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me when I say I understand your feelings on the issue. That said, Wikipedia is not for sharing your feelings, righting great wrongs, etc.

I am very familiar with the concept of othering and generally work to remove it when it pops up in articles (it's especially common in kids' media articles). I've worked against the issue where bands are labeled as "all girl" (the members are in their thirties and we don't call the Beatles and "all boy" band). In this particular case, the only demographic discussion I see cited on the page is that they are women (central to the show) and white (but discussed by only one source). The article lede should summarize the body of the article and adding white, affluent, American/U.S. born, urban, Judeo-Christian, cis, (pretty much) straight, non-Latina, able-bodied, liberal, etc. to the lede creates an angle for the article that does not match the sourced content.

Please read your talk page before restoring your edit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations sorely needed!

Most of the page is entirely uncited. B637275 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same point, 3 years later.... Eruditess (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]