Talk:Sailor Moon#a few questions

{{WP:Good article reassessment/Sailor Moon/2}}

Are they still existing as an official SM project or not? The article seems to imply that they gradually moved to a more subtle association than initially, but this is not described anywhere. Also, I had to rewrite some of the section parts, because it looks like someone, through original research, linked one of their singles from last year to them celebrating Pride Month for some reason. They truly wished fans a Happy Pride Month as a Japanese-American group, but the text were misleading, implying the single's release was part of a celebration, which it was not. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

While I've temporarily trimmed down the plot section since the idea is to summarize its plot and not its individual story arcs, I think we should include a potential setting subsection in that particular section as necessary. For reference, Dragon Ball (a B-class article) and One Piece (a GA) have plot sections containing both the setting and premise. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{user|Everm4e}} added an article from the New York Times in the reception section over [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon&diff=prev&oldid=1285506662 the past few months]. {{user|Loyalmoonie}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon&diff=prev&oldid=1291413931 moved] this article to the Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune articles and the article has since been repeatedly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon&diff=prev&oldid=1291839698 re-added] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sailor_Moon&diff=1292448338&oldid=1292433119 removed] from this page.

According to prior discussions on this page, Naoko Takeuchi's views are required for any LGBT-content to be added as per the relevant guidelines at WP:MOSANIME#Content and WP:FRINGE. Since we want to prevent any edit warring over this matter and consensus can change, I think we should open a discussion here for other editors to give their say on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think the addition of this opinion is an issue. Adding Naoko Takeuchi's views on the matter would be nice of course, but queer interpretations of Sailor Moon are far from fringe, and The New York Times is almost as reliable as it gets, at least within the scope of this particular topic area. WP:RSOPINIONs are perfectly valid and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be permitted. There are plenty of other reliable sources voicing support of, or commenting on, queer readings of the series. ([https://www.teenvogue.com/story/sailor-moons-erasure-lgbtq-characters], [https://www.vice.com/en/article/american-obsessions-sailor-moon-queer-indentity/], [https://mashable.com/article/sailor-moon-lgbtq-queer-dont-say-gay], [https://www.thepopverse.com/sailor-moon-lgbt-lgbtqia-lgbt-queer], [https://www.cbr.com/sailor-moon-queer-legacy-matters/], [https://www.pastemagazine.com/tv/anime/sailor-moon-characters-queer-identity]) silviaASH (inquire within) 02:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've found a few other sources which describe Sailor Moon as a queer series and discuss its influence on LGBTQ culture or on the yuri genre, discuss the censorship of the relationship between Sailor Uranus and Sailor Neptune: [https://doi.org/10.1386/stic_00114_7], [https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=141311475&site=eds-live&scope=site], [https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interview/2015-07-17/lauren-landa-and-erica-mendez-sailor-neptune-and-sailor-uranus/.90573], [https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2021-08-18/beyond-the-school-cathedral-how-yuri-grew-up/.175613], [https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2019-06-27/japanese-fans-official-translator-weigh-in-on-netflix-evangelion-english-subtitle-debate/.148305], [https://xtramagazine.com/culture/sailor-moon-made-me-gay-60722], [https://www.michigandaily.com/arts/the-dangers-of-censorship-and-sailor-moon/], [https://www.killscreen.com/sailor-moon-devil-horror-story-about-internet-queerdom/], [https://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/32647/1/how-manga-is-guiding-japan-s-youth-on-lgbt-issues], [https://www.vulture.com/2022/03/best-queer-animated-kids-shows.html]

::I'd also like to note that the WP:FRINGE guideline is mostly focused on countering the spread of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories within the encyclopedia; the section on identifying fringe theories is entirely about this. Applying WP:FRINGE to queer readings of media is a clear misapplication of that guideline, and the representation of such subjective opinions in articles is entirely beyond its scope. The intent of the guideline is to prevent a WP:FALSEBALANCE in articles from representing things like Climate change denial, Cryptozoology, and Gender critical feminism (all discredited ideas with no objective respectable basis in science) as being of equal merit to the findings and opinions of experts in the field, and not to keep an article from matter-of-factly describing someone's entirely subjective and unfalsifiable opinion or interpretation in a review or critical analysis of a movie or TV show or other media. Even if this were not the case, I think the sources I've provided are clear evidence that queer readings of Sailor Moon are widely accepted.

::To what extent queer readings of Sailor Moon are WP:DUE is a matter that can be debated, of course, but they should not be rejected out of hand, and policy provides no basis for us to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Here's the past discussions on this matter for your understanding.

:::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sailor_Moon/Archive_7#LGBT_categories_gone? Loyalmoonie (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There were also two RfCs on including LGBT as a main theme and including LGBT categories here and here. Those, however, were done way back in 2015. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::The WP:RECEPTION section of an article is intended to describe how a work was received by critics, writers, scholars and audiences. Including WP:RSOPINIONs from a source as reliable as The New York Times absolutely does not constitute a fringe theory. It is not speculative or undue to include critical and academic discussion of these elements in the reception section. As outlined in WP:MOSANIME#Reception, this section is meant to concisely describe the opinions expressed about the subject by reviewers, critics, academics, and, if reliable, secondary sources and include varying reliable opinions, whether kind or harsh, and controversies, in a WP:NPOV neutral tone.

::The consensus at Talk:Sailor Moon/Archive 7 is over a decade old, was reached before the article in question was written, and is concerned specifically with the categories and themes assigned to the article; therefore, it is not relevant to the current discussion regarding the series’ reception. The reception section should deal with how reliable critics, writers, scholars and audiences have responded to the work itself, rather than on categorization, metadata or thematic classification applied to the article. Relying on an outdated consensus that addresses a different aspect of the article’s structure and misapplying WP:FRINGE to WP:RSOPINIONs is wholly inappropriate and does not inform current editorial considerations regarding the inclusion of reliable analyses in the reception section. It should be pointed out that user "Loyalmoonie" has repeatedly removed well-sourced content relating to LGBT reception, in addition to misapplying Wikipedia guidelines and halting further discussions on the matter in the past by citing this same decade-old discussion that is once again irrelevant to the topic at hand. The sole mention of reception in the 2015 discussion further supports my point: "that said, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss [censorship based on orientation and gender identification] as well as any credible commentary on the reception of LGBT characters under the Reception and Legacy headings."

::Naoko Takeuchi has confirmed the existence of queerness in the franchise, and, as such, her views should absolutely be included, albeit under the appropriate heading. As for the New York Times piece about Sailor Moon, it is perfectly valid for addition under the WP:MOSANIME#Reception heading. Everm4e (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

: Friends, in my opinion you are just wasting your time on a pointless argument. We can have different views on how queer Sailor Moon is and how right this or that source is in describing it, it doesn't matter (though I agree that Naoko's confirmation of the nature of Uranus and Neptune's relationship is a questionable justification for adding sources that promote the ENTIRE series as queer). The main thing is that it is an authoritative source and its opinion is listed as a take, not as a fact. You're discussing this as if the question itself is "is there queer content in Sailor Moon or not", which has long been discussed and clearly does not depend on this source (yes, I know there are still fan debates in the fandom about trying to expand queer reading to almost all characters, but we are not discussing it now, fortunately). So why is this such a big problem? Solaire the knight (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Exactly...and that's why I said that any source added must contain Naoko Takeuchi's views on the matter in order to avoid reigniting this debate without a complete confirmation by the powers that be. True, she had commented on and confirmed Uranus and Neptune's relationship - hence, why I redirected Everm4e's NYT source to the aforementioned character articles - but that's as far as Takeuchi's views have ever gone; she did not (so far) say if whether she thought Sailor Moon as a whole series/franchise was queer or not, thus explaining why I applied WP:FRINGE and WP:MOSANIME#Content to Everm4e's edits. Without Takeuchi's views, Everm4e's edits fail to satisfy WP:MOSANIME#Content and (especially) WP:FRINGE, because it is allowing speculative fan information (including Everm4e's NYT source) to be included that is not grounded in fact, as Solaire the knight said. Only an official source from Naoko Takeuchi, herself, can confirm/deny if Everm4e's source can be grounded in fact and not a take.Loyalmoonie (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::: You've slightly misunderstood what I wanted to say. I'm not going to get into a general debate about this source, there are enough people here without me. But what I meant was that this is the subjective opinion of an individual journalist, which also lacks any context that would allow their opinion to be better understood. So I don't quite understand why you're making such a big deal about its authenticity, as if your opponent is trying to make some objective fact with it. As far as I can see from the edit history, no one has tried to claim that the manga itself is literally like that, they've just cited it as one of the opinions about it. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::My apologies. I thought I was agreeing with your statement. Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Rejecting WP:RSOPINIONs out of hand contradicts said guidelines and misrepresents the purpose of a Reception heading. It would omit a significant aspect of how the series has been received by critics, scholars as well as audiences. You may wish to revisit WP:RSOPINION to understand why such analyses are included in relevant sections. Blackburn's analysis is about Sailor Moon as a "transformative experience" that is centered on themes of friendship and liberation and points out that it has an "iconic status" with the queer community due to the aforementioned elements. This analysis is reflective of a significant and widely acknowledged dimension of the franchise’s reception, as seen in a wealth of verifiable sources provided by SilviaASH above. To reiterate, per MOS:ANIME#Reception, the Reception section is intended to "concisely describe the opinions expressed about the subject by reviewers, critics, academics and reliable secondary sources." The inclusion of critical analyses is not only appropriate but expected. Everm4e (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Agree with Everm4e here. Loyalmoonie calling an op-ed from The New York Times of all things a {{tq|speculative fan opinion}} is rich and might be one of the most absurd opinions I have ever seen expressed on a Wikipedia talk page. By its very nature, it is impossible for an opinion to be entirely {{tq|"grounded in fact"}}. There are some considerations of what is admissible to a WP:RECEPTION section, but the threshold for unreliability here is different. What I would call an unreliable source of opinions for our purposes is, for example, a website that is known to have taken bribes from a particular invested party to write negative reviews of one piece of media, and positive reviews of another, without either opinion being genuine or truly reflective of the critical consensus around a piece of media.

::::The essay WP:BFDI explains this well, under "Inclusion criteria and neutrality":

::::{{blockquote|{{tq|It is also important for sources to be reliable. Websites hosting self-published and/or user-generated content like Facebook and Fandom are unreliable because anyone there can publish anything, including false and/or biased information. People who disapprove of BFDI could write (or pay someone to write) unduly negative reviews about the show, which would not be representative of the true consensus of critics. This is why sources need to be reliable. A reputable publication would see if the review came from a professional critic and if they are being genuine.}}}}

::::Special attention should be given to that last sentence, because that is the actual criteria we should be considering here. Is the review from a professional, and is it a genuinely held opinion? I think it should go without saying that we can rely on WP:NYTIMES, of all sources, to meet this basic standard of verification. Unless Loyalmoonie would like to propose that The New York Times, Vice Media, Anime News Network, Paste Magazine, Erica Friedman, Vulture, and Comic Book Resources, among others, are engaging in a milkman conspiracy to falsely paint "Sailor Moon has some queer themes" as a commonly held opinion, their argument that neutrally including this opinion falls under WP:FRINGE is a complete nonstarter. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've also looked over the RfCs, and as far as I can tell, the question at hand there was whether or not Wikipedia should categorize the series as an LGBT work. However, the question there is not "is anything about Sailor Moon's relationship to the LGBT community allowed to be mentioned in the article at all" but rather, "should it be listed as a main theme of the series (in categories, infobox, whatever)". I would say that question is more up in the air, and the consensus from that time seems fair.

:::::However, that consensus did not extend to including reliably sourced opinions about the series. It was solely about how Wikipedia neutrally categorizes the series' genre. It is perfectly possible for us to neutrally state that professional critics have published queer readings of a piece of media, or any readings, for that matter, without giving the impression that their reading is objectively correct.

:::::For a model of how I would say we should do this (and I'm deliberately taking an example that's not related to queer readings here to show how I neutrally apply this standard), the article on Ghostbusters (a featured article) has a section on thematic analyses of the film, where various reliably sourced opinions from critics are neutrally stated. Among those opinions is included various political readings suggesting the film supports Reaganomics and is a fundamentally conservative or libertarian work. This is of course subjective, but the opinions are neutrally stated from reliable sources, so they are allowed to be included.

:::::You'll notice that noting the balanced inclusion of this opinion does not extend to how the film is described in WikiVoice. We do not say "Ghostbusters is a 1984 propaganda film for the Reagan administration" or any such thing in the lede, we don't categorize the movie in :Category:Films about American politics or anything like that. We can do the same here; state that professional critics have expressed the opinion that Sailor Moon is queer, and then leave "LGBT" out of the lede, the categories, the infobox, etc. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::...If it does not extend to categories as you said, I'll accept. Loyalmoonie (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)