aka Sarah

  • I live in Rio Piedras, PR
  • I was born on June 7
  • My occupation is Legal Mercenary Paper-Pusher
  • I am Female
  Loading editor
  • Hi.

      Loading editor
  • Will you please stop renaming the princess articles, we call them just by there names "Cinderella", "Ariel" and "Snow White" not "Princess Cinderella", "Princess Ariel" or "Princess Snow White". If you proceed any further and do not stop I will report you to the administrators.

      Loading editor
  • Please stop arguing with me and stop undoing my edits on that page. It has already been established and agreed upon that Rolfe is NOT her husband in Disney canon, so I would very much appreciate it if you would please stop making those changes to that page and knock off the editing wars.

      Loading editor
    • Established? Where? Agreed by whom?

      There is more evidence that she marries him than there is evidence that Snow White marries the Prince. My edits are as legal as yours or anyone else's.

      They may not have actually married in the sequel, but:

      A) They kiss at the end, implying a happily ever after

      B) John Smith stays behind in England

      C) Historically, Smith never returned to New England

      D) Historically, she does marry Rolfe

      Are you arguing that Pocahontas chooses to not marry Rolfe after he gives up a royal appointment to be with her? After that kiss? KNOWING that historically she does not see Smith again and does marry Rolfe?

      What more evidence must there be? The Price wakes Snow White with a kiss and they head to the "castle in the sky"... no wedding either, but nobody argues that they don't marry. Why the double standard?

      I could ask you to stop undoing my edits on that page. Why should I and not you?

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • What on earth is a legal mercenary paper pusher?

      Loading editor
  • About the "Tangled Ever After" situation, the Disney wiki has never listed animated shorts in the info boxes. The "Films" section is simply meant for animated feature films like Tangled and Frozen. Yes, Tangled Ever After marks Rapunzel's second major appearance, but it's a short, not a movie. But... Perhaps, if the community as a whole wishes to have shorts listed in the info boxes, we can have them revamped to fit the necessary desires. But that's entirely up to the community as a whole. I, for one, don't mind either way.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • How can it be speculation if the magic was born in her? The magic was activated in her hair with the incantation song, and after it was cut, the magic was in her tears. Rapunzel, with her happy ever after, likely wouldn't shed a tear ever again, so it makes sense that (like it did for the hair to her tears) the magic would also work in other ways (especially as it didn't only work for her hair).

      Loading editor
    • View all 7 replies
    • When people shed tears, they sometimes shed only one. I've done so. Rapunzel shed one tear because she loved Eugene. If someone else whom she loved also was dying, Pascal for example, he would also have been healed, and most likely by another tear.

      Regarding your illustration, magic isn't like a pen. It's everlasting. I strongly believe it's still in her, because tears can't be cut, and it wasn't as if it found it's way into the tear, but as if it were already there. With the care she was given by Gothel, she most likely never cried (people cry when they're emotional and she would have had to be in an emotional state to heal whatever would be causing her to cry: pain (Flynn's cut hand, for example), someone's death (Flynn's)). Don't you think that if a young Rapunzel cried over something (a burned hand, for example) and was too overwhelmed to sing the song, the tear would've healed that wound?? What I'm getting at is that it was already in her tear as if it were in her entire being and was still in her.

        Loading editor
    • Lett's discuss magical theory here; what you are referring to is the law of sympathetic memory; Rapunzel was touched by magic, so she is, indeed more apt to have an affinity for magic because it was already in her. In this she is altered forever.

      HOWEVER, the specific healing energies of the Sun Flower, as explicitly described in the film, are limited; the same way that the flower itself died when its energy was infused into a tea for Rapunzel's mother, the energy requires a living receptacle in order to renew itself. In this specific case, the living receptacle is explicitly shown to be Rapunzel's hair and ONLY her hair; we can clearly see that it does not manifest either in her eyebrows or in her eyelashes. Without the hair to hold and renew the magic, the magic energy is gone. Enough remained that, under EXTREME duress, within a few minutes of the event, that she was able to manifest what little energy remained in her, most likely remaining in her shag; as this was a miraculous event (pretty much by definition), that little drop managed to do quite a bit of magic, but after its effect was completed, the miracle passed; it was over; no more active magic remained in her. (Add to this the True Love clause typical of Disney films and the case is cinched.)

      Can she perform magic later?

      Yes, quite likely; sympathetic memory means that she was "touched by magic"; if she finds a teacher, spellbook, fairy godmother or similar, she will likely have a greater affinity for magic than your average person. Add to this her supernatural abilities due to being a Disney Princess (i.e. animal communication/companionship, the ability to draw on the power of True Love, etc...) and her considerable intelligence, knowledge and practiced abilities, she would make a GREAT wizardess...

      But this is all speculation and wishful thinking.

      As it stands, there is NOTHING to indicate that: A) after she lost her hair she gained the ability to manifest healing abilities AT WILL through the power of her tears, B) she has used those powers on herself and/or Eugene to maintain their youth.

      Would it be cool, sweet and wonderful if she had her powers? Yes. But that is what fanfic is for; there she can keep her powers, regrow her hair, go to Hogwarts and swap hairstyle tips with Leia Organa; none of this belongs in the baseline wiki article on the character.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • There is no sense in constantly disagreeing in the summary section of the editing section, so let's do it here.

    As per the Merriam Webster Dictionary:


    1. a :  a mythological or legendary woman having the qualities of a hero b :  a woman admired and emulated for her achievements and qualities

    2. a :  the principal female character in a literary or dramatic work b :  the central female figure in an event or period

    Mulan's occupation is not 'Hero of China" first of all that would be an honorary title not a career. Secondly, while hero can apply to what she is, heroine is a more appropriate.   Heroine  is a word used for a female hero, not just a drug.  To undo an edit on those grounds is ridiculous.  That type of logic dillutes the English language, and with swag and yolo I think we have enough problems. 

      Loading editor
    • "Hero" applies to both men and women. These days, real life women are referred to as heroes instead of heroines.

      Word gender has never been very popular in English. It's even less popular in American English, so with most words with a masculine and feminine form it is perfectly okay to use the male form for both genders.

      Think about it; a female firefighter saves a family on TV, is she a heroine or a hero when the news comes on? She is a hero.

      A female US Marine receives a silver star for valor; is she referred to as a heroine? No. She is a hero.

      Female deputy gives her life on the line of duty. Is she called a heroine? No. She is a hero.

      Do you think the Chinese Emperor, or any of the gazillion people who bowed to her in the film if Mulan considers her a heroine? No, of course not; she is a hero.

      Notice the definitions YOU bring; 1. "a mythological or legendary"... 2. "character in a literary or dramatic work..." (read the following carefully, because I have stated it before and you seem to ignore it) to US (in the real world), Fa Mulan is a heroine, but IN THE FILM, to all the other CHARACTERS in the film, she is NOT a literary, legendary or mythological person: she is a living, breathing, human being who has performed heroic acts.

      Do you understand this point now?

      Second: the line which we are discussing lists her occupation in the film, not our real-world perception of her.

      Third, considering all these things and the perception of them, adding to the fact that "heroine" is homophonic with "heroin", while seemingly silly, is just the icing on the cake. An attempt to add a little humor to the whole issue, which apparently went over yours head. for that I apologize; I thought that the inherent silliness of the point would have made its jocularity obvious, but your fixation on the issue has proven me woefully wrong.

      There. I have exposed my position and hopefully answered your questions. If you have further objections to listing Mulan's in-universe occupation as "Hero of China", please note them and I will gladly answer them tommorrow.

      Have a pleasant evening,

      --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 01:59, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • First of all nothing has gone over my head and if it has seemed like I have ignored a point it is because I cannot write an essay in the summary section but I apologize for my mistake. 

      Secondly, you are just as fixated on it as I am sweetie, as you feel the need to contiue to edit this topic. 

      Now lets move on to the other stuff shall we?

      You seem to be ignorant to the fact that I also cited "a woman admired and emulated for her achievements and qualities" and "the central female figure in an event or period." 

      Now, I am not denying that hero can apply to a woman, but in my experience on this world people always taught me hero is typically for a man and heroine is typically for a woman but the hero can be interchangable. I'm not denying that, I give you that one because it is true. In fact if my knowledge is correct I said that at least twice. But at the end of the day it is still English.  Heroine is a word in the English dictionary just like hero is.  Just because one is used more than the other doesn't make the other incorrect.  Heroine is still an appropriate term to describe what she is.  That's the point you are not getting. Did you get it that time? We can go over it again, I can even draw pictures if it will help.

      Third the 'icing on the cake' as you put it is that fact that heroine is a homophone with heroin.  To my response is, so what!? Homophones exist that doesn't mean they are viable ground to base an edit off of.  In context 'heroin' doesn't make any freaking sense. It is like saying the fisherman stabbed a wail.  It makes no sense, obviously they are talking about the mammal the whale and not a cry.  In context heronie is perfectly reasonable, Mulan's 'occupation' of heroine of China =/= the heroin of China.  They aren't boiling her down and shooting themselves up with her, It makes no sense.  Obviously, this is a difficult concept for you since you based your original edit on this very topic.   Apparently I am not the only one with things going over my head, but hey at least we are in the same boat.

      If it interests you this problem no longer exists.  I have since removed "Hero/Heroine of China" from the character box.  It was under Occupation and Hero/heroine is not an occupation, it is an honorary title.  They are not employing her to save China on a daily basis.  She joined the army, saved China and became a hero/heroine and was rewarded.  That doesn't make it her occupation.  Hopefully we can at least agree on that one. 

      So if you have anymore questions you know where to find me and I will gladly get back to you tomorrow. 

        Loading editor
    • I have absolutely no problem removing the line from the article. I will be adding "Imperial agent" (which I had previously added before it was removed) because that is specifically what she is in Mulan II; the Emperor tasks her with a mission, ergo, she is an imperial agent.

      Oh... and about "over the head"; you might want to read my post again to see where you failed to grasp the meaning; I keep bringing it up because YOU keep bringing it up, not the other way around.

      --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 12:49, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • I too have no problems with adding that to the article, though it brings a whole new topic of discussion that is more than likely beyond either of us. 

      Lastly, before this conversation dies off I would like to point out that not once was I rude to you, before your first post on this thread.  All I cited was a flaw in your reasoning, which there is/was.  I suppose I could have been more delicate but I like to get to the point.  I have found that the less time you spend screwing around the more effective communication works.  So I didn't want to waste time.  Perdon me.  It wasn't until you came here and decided to take butthurt shots at me that I returned the favor.  I'm not asking for an apology, nor do I intend on giving one, and I'm not asking for you to like me or be my friend. All I want from here on out is that you and I can be cordial with each other and make effective edits.  That is alll.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+