Talk:Tiana (The Princess and the Frog)

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

"Nationality: African-American"?[edit]

Sorry to split semantic hairs, but I'm pretty sure African-American is a race and/or ethnicity, not a nationality. Tiana's nationality would probably be American (or possibly Maldonian?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.105.162 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First American Princess?[edit]

I thought that title belonged to Pocahontas or Snow White. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.238.156 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should be "African-American". It's been corrected. Cactusjump (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Snow White clearly takes place in a made up European country. America has never has a monarchy. I'm still not sure how they're doing it in Princess and the Frog. And the edit did mention Pocahontas, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.208.15 (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems she is not a princess to start with but marries "free-spirited, jazz-loving Prince Naveen of Maldonia". I guess I could have put a spoiler warning on that, but heck, anyone who can't work that out is probably too young to be reading this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should also make the point of her being an American princess. It's far less talked about than her being the first black princess (don't criticise, that's how many sources describe her) and I don't know if she's the first or second (was Pocohontas a princess?) but if there are a few references maybe a mention is worthwhile. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any articles mentioning her as being a stand-out American princess (since Pocahontas is considered part of the franchise), just the uniqueness of her being the first African-American princess. But I think it should be included that she is not born to royalty, as other Disney princess articles make that clarification. Cactusjump (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First African-American Princess[edit]

Just as the Barack Obama page points out that he is the first African-American president in the history of the United States, this article has ONE sentence stating that Princess Tiana is the first African-American princess in the history of Disney animation. There are two works cited that discuss that this is groundbreaking in the history of Disney's princesses, and is therefore relevant to the article. Cactusjump (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would call those articles racist for only looking at her appearance. Second, I'm sure you could find a lot of racist things written about the President too, would those be added to his page? Having other people support prejudice doesn't make it okay, you seem to think so. It certainly doesn't make it relevant to a movie that has nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.208.15 (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning her race is racist![edit]

As I have edited the page several times, and will continue to state it is degrading and racist to mention this character's race. It is not relevant to the story or the film. She is not the first minority princess, and she is also the only one to have her race mentioned without it pertaining to her geography. She shouldn't have to be remembered for skin tone, she should be remembered for the character they're creating. This is extremely offensive. If anything mention that she is the first American Princess, since Pocahontas. Someone mentioned Snow White, but that doesn't make any sense. Mentioning her race gives the impression that she is inherently different someone because of it, which is completely false. Science has proven beyond doubt that race does not exist. Let's please pretend this is 2009, and discuss this character and the HUMAN BEING she is, not the socially constructed label. I don't care if it's one sentence of a thousand, it is demeaning and insulting. Just as it is with the President. You want to talk about something groundbreaking? How about ignoring her appearance and presenting her as character equal to all others? Then you have progression. Until then, you're only seeing color and it's racist! (173.60.208.15 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Let's not feed the trolls. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly someone not capable of an intelligent discussion. (173.60.208.15 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

For your information it is not racist to mention or discuss race, either of a real person or a fictional character. Prejudice against race is not the same as acknowledgement of race. Your edits here are disruptive. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Cactusjump (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging race when it has no relevance to the story or character, is racist. It's racist because, it gives the idea that the character is inherently different solely based on her race. And if you're going to talk about Obama, he asked on numerous occasions not to have his race considered, because he wanted to be judged based on his character, not his appearance. This is because he knows, as an educated man, that it has no relevance whatsoever! The very mentioning of her race is offensive because it demeans everything about the character and the film. It makes the progression of her being a minority, nothing more than tokenism. Again, you reach the point of progression when you DON'T have to mention it. Separate is NOT equal. And the very idea that you called her race "crucial information" in a prior message to me shows the weight you put on it, and that is racist. I'm sorry that you find tolerance "disruptive", but this is not acceptable. This page needs to be edited, or I'm sorry I will go above your head and get this changed. Either way, this is not going to be how this character is remembered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.208.15 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way the one sentence is racist is if the term "African-American" is offensive. Is this term offensive to you? If it is, that means you have your own negative pre-conceived notions about the term "African-American." Because the term has no negative connotations to me, or anyone else who has edited this article. I am proud of my race and my culture. And the fact that this is the first African-American princess in the history of Disney animation means we HAVE moved forward as a society where all races can be recognized.
...And if you choose to change this article again without getting a consensus here, I will report you for vandalism and disruptive editing. Cactusjump (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


First of all, I will again say that you can only have moved forward, if you don't feel the need to mention her race. Mentioning something gives the impression of relevance, which race is not. In this instance, it gives the impression that she is somehow inherently different from others simply because of her appearance, which she is not. Mentioning it negates the entire progression of her being created, because the goal is get beyond race. If then turn around and draw attention back to it, you're moving backwards and demeaning the character. This is a simple concept, why do I have to repeat it? Second, I could care less if I'm reported. I'm not disrupting anything, I'm identifying racism, and I will do so on record. Exposing me can only expose you, and I would love that. I'm not trying to make enemies, but this is an unfair double standard. No other princess's race is mentioned, which is great, but she should be allowed the same consideration. I've yet to hear you respond to that. And if you must know, I do find the term offensive. Not because I think there is a negative connotation, but because it gives the impression of differences, which is a false one. This character is an American, period. I am an American, period. It's 2009, in order to get beyond race, we must accept that is not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.208.15 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to push a point-of-view, as we are very much neutral in mindset here at Wikipedia. The fact that reputable news sources have commented on this character being the first African-American Disney princess makes this information notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. Continued use of this page as a soapbox or edit warring will be considered disruptive editing and will result in a block from the site. Thank you, Vicenarian (T · C) 03:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not "pushing a point of view", nor am I the least bit intimidated by you. No, I don't like the term, but that is not why I feel it shouldn't be used. Clearly you can't comprehend my argument, or you are simply insensitive to racial issues. As I've stated before I would fault those programs as well, no matter how reputable. Why are you equating my commentary with "disrupting"? I have given you a rational, truth-based, argument. You have given me complete dismissal, and not responded to most of what I've said. I'm looking for a rational reason for the inclusion of her race, as I've given several reasons why it's wrong, and you refuse to even consider my point. Either way, you're complete rudeness is unwarranted and childish. I was told to bring this up here for discussion, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead they just me to shut up about this issue, and that's not going to happen. Even if banned, I have friends who will protest this. Is what I'm saying so crazy to you people? What a sad world we live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.208.15 (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

173... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you are fully entitled to believe that any mention of race is 'racist'. However at Wikipedia the content of articles is decided by consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more on what that means. On this matter you are clearly in a minority of one, and hence the article is not going to be changed to reflect your viewpoint.
As to your arguments it is clearly not racist to mention race. Racism is discrimination on the basis of race. It is no more racist to state facts about someone's race than it is discriminatory to describe someone as 'tall' or 'American'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black[edit]

It's not my intent to be racially insensitive here, but I'm beginning to wonder if rather than "first African-American princess" we might say "first black princess". I know some people object to using black this way, but several major sources are putting it that way. Being the first black princess is more notable than first African-American. Had Disney done many stories set in Africa, Tiana could still be the first African-American without being the first black princess. Opinions? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you; a majority of the sources do say "black." I just hesitate because I don't know what the sensitivity is on the word. Everyone has their opinion on if the word is appropriate or not. Cactusjump (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another question would be: if we do use the word "Black" is it capitalized or not? Cactusjump (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Sources don't seem to. [1] [2] [3]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think if we have a majority of sources saying "black" than that would be the acceptable term to use over "African-American." Cactusjump (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both. "Black" should be used instead of "African-American" if that is the term in the sources (and that also "internationalizes" the article a bit), and it should be lowercase (except when at the beginning of the sentence, of course). :) Vicenarian (T · C) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's been changed then; it was only mentioned once! Cactusjump (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a fast change. I was going to wait a bit. But let's "be bold in editing". I'm going to add some more references that explicitly call Tiana "black". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if there's a disagreement about it, we'll hear from it--hopefully here. :) I believe two of the three sources there use the term "black," so you have a headstart! Cactusjump (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


How about we pretend it's 2009, and not mention her race at all??? Seeing as is has nothing to do with the story, and cheapens her to nothing less than a token character. (173.60.208.15 (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I knew it! You're Stephen Colbert! You don't see race! In other news, the United States Census is destructive because it collects data on racial self-identification, even though it uses the data it collects to more accurately and effectively allocate government services. The NAACP is wrong because, while it has been instrumental in fighting for the civil rights of an historically oppressed group of people, it mentions race in its name. If the mere MENTION of race is blasphemous, then U.S. President Barack Obama is a blasphemer, as he mentions race IN THE TITLE of his seminal memoir Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Okay, I'll stop now.
The fact that Tiana is black does not reduce her to a token character at all, for that is merely part of her story. The fact that she is black shows that Disney, like the rest of us, can no longer deny that we as a species are diverse in the color of our skin, that skin color may make us look different but that we are all fundamentally the same people, and that all shades of humanity are just as worthy of being a heroine. Vicenarian (T · C) 11:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, in case I haven't made myself clear, the fact that she is black is notable for mention and is momentous because fifty years ago, Disney would never have considered a black princess because of racial prejudice. Her existence, the fact that she is black, goes to show how far we've come in defeating racism. We mention her race not to be racist, but to show how racial barriers are dissolving. Race may not matter now, in 2009, but it did once. Pretending history never happened, suppressing it from Wikipedia, ignores the very basis of the human story, which is one of progress; it is vital for us to understand how far we have come from the joys and pains of our past, so we may understand how far we have yet to go. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here here! This is why the fact that she is black is mentioned in several notable sources. Cactusjump (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several ignorant, misguided articles that only look at what she looks like and nothing else. You are all so sad it's sickening. How you can honestly not see the complete hypocrisy is mentioning her race and claiming progress? I'll state again, that you only get progress when you don't mention her race at all. And as for that ridiculous Obama comparison, his book was specifically about race. This film has nothing to with it. It's mind blowing that you're all so racially conscious in 2009 . I would pity this ignorance, but it's doesn't deserve it. It doesn't matter how many articles mention it, it's still wrong. A whole of lot of fountains said "White only", does majority really make it right? When every other princess has her race mentioned on a page then maybe this would be understandable, but it's not okay and certainly unacceptable. I realizing that you're not discriminating against her directly, but mentioning it gives the impression that she is inherently different and undermines her individuality, which is an strong treat of racism. As long as her race is all people mention, any so-called progress is defeated. You people have made her a token. No more, no less. Progression works towards a color blind society, which you people clearly have no interest in. (173.60.208.15 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

We're all different. Society works best when we recognize our differences, cherish them and yet at the same time, understand the common similarities that unite us all as human beings. Ignoring our differences, pretending they don't exist, is just as insensitive as using them for discrimination - you are, in essence, robbing us of our individuality, our cultures, our heritage and our history.
But regardless, with regards to the Wikipedia page, Tiana's race is notable as it is mentioned in several sources, therefore, we must include it in order to have a complete, accurate article. It's as simple as that. I would also note that it is one sentence in a substantial article, and so in no way is it all that we mention and in no way does it reduce her to a token. It is one a fact in a fact-based encyclopedia article. End of story.
Respectfully, Vicenarian (Said · Done) 13:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsflash: Skin color does not determine culture or difference. I agree we need to accept people's differences but race is not a valid one. Action and choices determine someone's individuality and culture. Heritage can be adhered to if by choice. Assuming you know anything about someone simply based on their looks is ignorance, and saying that people are different because of it is just factually wrong. I hope you are educated enough to realize race is a man made concept with NO biological foundation. If you call her black, you need to mention that Ariel was the first red head, as it makes that much inherit difference. People give race its meaning, not nature. Again you use the "several sources" argument, which means nothing to me except that there are still a lot of ignorant people out there. This sight seems to want to join them. This is a great example of 1 step forward, 10 steps back. (173.60.208.15 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest you take this up with the major publications, including African-American publications, who published the references we cite. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance can come from within a group as well. I don't care who you sitecite. (173.60.208.15 (talk) 09:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

site: the position or location of a town, building, etc.; cite: to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), esp. as an authority [4]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well congratulations. You finally made a valid point. (173.60.208.15 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wasn't the princess from the Atlantis film black? Yes, it turns out she was. So this isn't the first black Disney princess. 86.2.118.52 (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is not in the official Disney Princess line-up. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased?[edit]

Just passing by, but I think Tiana can be considered an official Disney Princess as she is shown on the Disney Princess page on their website : http://disney.go.com/princess/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.92.127 (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is indicated in the article in several places. Thanks, though! Cactusjump (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's still talked about in the future tense in a couple of places, but I'm going to fix them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

species[edit]

I find it hilarious that in the brief bio of Tiana on the right-hand side of the page that under "species" it says "frog (briefly)." It might be more accurate if the word "briefly" appeared next to human. According to my recollection, Tiana is in human form for 15 minutes or so of a 95 minute film. She is a frog for the majority of the film, which clearly does not describe "briefly." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediacritickm (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Servant?[edit]

How is Tiana a servant? Generally, servants are people who tend to an individual or household on a regular basis, in most cases living with them, somewhat like a modern-day butler. Tiana still lives in her own home, working two jobs as a waitress, a day and a night shift.--Changedforbetter (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 10:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana (Disney character) → Tiana (The Princess and the Frog) – As per WP:NCFILM#Character articles: when disambiguation is needed, we should use the film/film series/franchise. This would also be WP:CONSISTENT with articles of many other Disney characters. See similar discussions at Talk:Scar (The Lion King)#Requested move 18 February 2018, Talk:Elsa (Frozen)#Requested move 28 February 2018, Talk:Ariel (The Little Mermaid)#Requested move 7 April 2018 and Talk:Aurora (Sleeping Beauty)#Requested move 22 April 2021. Pamzeis (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think there is good reason to consider the Disney Princesses as a whole and maintain consistency in their article titling. Currently,
    • 7: Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Rapunzel, Merida, Elsa, and Anna are disambiguated with (film title)
    • 6: Snow White, Cinderella, Jasmine, Mulan, Tiana, and Moana are disambiguated with (Disney character)
    • and Pocahantas just gets (character)
    I would support a multiple move request that unifies the naming of the full set and am agnostic on which disambiguator to use. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, for Snow White, Cinderella, Mulan, Pocahontas and Moana, their names are the same as their film's title and per NCFILM, they should use "(character)" to disambiguate. A lot of the characters names are used in other media. However, all the other characters of the same name seem to not have articles or are redirects so I'm not sure if we can move all the eponymous character articles to just "(character)". Also, Cinderella (character) and Moana (character) already redirect to the Disney character articles. Pamzeis (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiana_(The_Princess_and_the_Frog)&oldid=1215259258"