Talk:Fräulein

2005 Comments

To Kosebamse--I had changed the meaning to "Young" because little can seem offensive, If it indeed does literally mean "little" okie, but think the other possible translation of "Miss" should be moved up next to that.

---

The title "Fräulein" is not in use anymore today in Germany, with only few exceptions by elderly people. It is generally considered inappropriate. I've changed the article accordingly.--195.176.20.45 15:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I came here looking to see the proper use of this word (I won't even repeat it); I never expected such controversy and passion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.37.3 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To User:152.163.100.196 or User:152.163.100.136 -- seems to be the same person

Hi, please stop adding things which you, I and everybody else knows are just not true. You may be longing, for whatever reason, for the good old days, but they are history. All the best, <KF> 22:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Is the word "Fräulein" still being used?

Instead of your blocking the fraulein article, why don't we try to come up with some sort of wording that we both can agree on? Well I acknowledge that the term has declined in popularity, I feel that saying that the term is "hardly every used" is a bit extreem. The spirt it Wikipedia is to arrive at a compromise, not to block a page because of an edit war.

205.188.117.14

Thank you for your message. Of course I am prepared to discuss the contents of the Fräulein article—the best place to do so would of course be here, a talk page which of course has not been protected. However, repeatedly deleting my user and talk pages in a futile attempt to harm me is not going to help. Say what you have to say on this talk page—and I'm talking about arguments here, not insults—and wait for others to respond.

Personally, I'd be interested to learn if you are living in a German-speaking country or by what other means you have arrived at your conclusion (see above). All the best, <KF> 08:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any personal views on the subject of the article. My reverts were done purely because the changes appeared to be vandalism. What was being repeatedly removed included the information on the song and the pictures associated with it.

I will stick a watch on this page and if you suggest a reasonable change to the content, I will request that an admin removes the block on the article.

You may also want to sign up for a free account. These sort of misunderstandings are a lot less likely to happen if the changes are made by a signed in user. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Fräulein" from the German Wikipedia (August 31, 2005)

Those of you who can read German might find the corresponding article from the German Wikipedia interesting:

Fräulein (2004 in Deutschland fast außer Gebrauch) war bis in die 1970er Jahre in der Bundesrepublik und bis zur Wende in der DDR die regelmäßige Anrede (address) für noch unverehelichte junge Frauen ab dem Ende des Kindesalters. (Vgl. auch Komtess, Freiin.)

Ursprünglich war die Anrede "Fräulein" jedoch nur Standespersonen vorbehalten (auch "Herr" und "Frau" standen als Titel keinesfalls allen zu). Vgl. Goethes "Faust I", wo Faust sich an Gretchen heran macht: Mein schönes Fräulein, darf ich's wagen, Mein Arm und Geleit Ihnen anzutragen ..., und sie ihn als durchaus selbstbewusste Kleinbürgertochter abblitzen lässt: Bin weder Fräulein weder schön, Kann ungeleit' nach Hause gehn.

Vergleichbares zum "Fräulein" findet sich auch in anderen europäischen Sprachen (z.B. im Schwedischen fröken, im Englischen Miss).

Die Frauenbewegung der 70er Jahre kritisierte diese Anrede wegen der inhärenten gesellschaftlichen Werte und Vorstellungen, die darin zum Tragen kommen. Das Wort Fräulein impliziert, dass eine weibliche Person erst dann zur Frau wird, wenn sie geheiratet und somit entjungfert (deflowered) wird. Ein männliches Pendant (equivalent) (Männlein) gibt es dementsprechend auch nicht, da Männer in diesem Wertesystem aus sich heraus schon genug sind, um den Titel "Mann" zu tragen, wohingegen Frauen erst von einem Mann zur Frau gemacht werden müssten.

August 31, 2005

It is important to realize that there are certain elderly and socially convervative speakers who prefer to use the term. Certainly, there is a significant number of unmarried, older woman (over the age of 50, say) who would consider it inappropriate to be addressed as "Fräu." I suggest that the wording of the article be changed to reflect this fact. Instead of saying "is hardly ever used", I would say perhaps "as a result of the feminist movement of the 1970s, the usage of this term has declined and many women consider the term to be offensive" or something to that degree. Even though the use of the word "Miss" has declined in English, one would not say that the term is never used. I am interested in hearing some other opinions on the subject though....

Sounds like a good solution to me. Some explanation of the differences in attitude between the age groups is certainly better than removing the content. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

So will you please remove the block?

I don't have the ability to do that. There seems to be an important copyright discussion going on in IRC at the moment. Once that is over, I will ask there. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked as per request. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

To the anon users re-fighting this war.

Any unsourced assertion with "educated Xes" is extremely suspect on Wikipedia, as it sounds self-aggrandizing. "All men of learning agree that the so-called Founding Fathers of the United States were nothing more than a vocal minority, ultimately a failure on the world stage." "Philosophers, religious and secular alike, concur that strawberry ice cream tastes significantly better than chocolate." Just because YOU prefer to use Fräulein doesn't mean all "educated people" do. SnowFire 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowfire, I concur and I have thus eliminated the term ´´educated speakers´´ from the article. You were however incorrect to revert the article since the previous version implies that nobody uses the term ´´fraulein´´. I do not understand why you reverted the article when you could have simply made the correction. In the future, I would suggest more thorough research into articles before blindly performing reverts. (Above written by 201.79.37.127. -SF)

Well, at least this is more a factual dispute now, not as much a style dispute. That said, the accusation of "blindly reverting" is rich. Let's examine the history now, shall we:

• 5 March 2005 Early version. Says "The expression has gone out of fashion and is now widely considered derogatory."
• 17 July 2005 Wow, pretty much the same.
• 24 August 2005 diff Well, here's the original change! Don't know if you just adopted the style of the anon user before or simply are the same person, but "non-radical Germans" and "only in business settings" (women in business! gasp!) are pretty much giveaways that there's an ax to grind here. See above talk page notices.

Hmm. Seems like it's hardly the case that some revisionist evil version is being reverted to by me.

Anyway. If the discussion was about grammar, you may have had a point. The problem is that nobody disputes that Fräulein still means "unmarried woman." The question is, as you put it, whether it is proper to use it. This is not a question of grammar, this is a question of actual usage and etiquette. And it just isn't true that it's commonly used anymore, and it is also true that it is considered derogatory. You'll note that the article does not say that it is derogatory, merely that it is considered so. You are entirely free to rail against society for buckling to feminism or something, but you have to accept the reality that Fräulein isn't commonly used.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia reflects reality. If you think people should still use "Fräulein," go tell them! Get on TV! Lobby politicians! Write angry letters to the editor! Just don't edit wishes into Wikipedia and represent them as reality. SnowFire 01:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let´s just leave it at that. I would think that there would be more pressing cases of actual vandalism on which you could focus your attention.

No, let's not leave it at the incorrect version. Inserting errors of fact is worse than standard vandalism. At least graffiti and nonsense can be ignored when read. SnowFire 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok Snow Fire, this is the bottom line. I reverted the article to the March, 2005 version. At least this version mentions the reality that certain elderly and socially conservative speakers still use the term. It still however conforms to your slanted views on the subject, so all is well.

I can accept that, at least for the time being.

To the anon IP users.

Hopefully you are not the same as the user above, who seemed to make some peace with the version I made before.

The phrase "Today, the expression is considered derogatory by left-wing feminists, but mainstream Germans recognize that the proper way..." is so obviously POV that it doesn't pass the laugh test. Please read WP:NPOV. More to the point, unless all the actual Germans I know along with friends who have taken German and their German professors and a random book I checked at the bookstore are all insane, it's also false. Maybe, maybe, maybe, fräulein is actually used casually more than is thought, and it's merely censored in the press and in writings abroad. I wouldn't know, as I'm not German. That said, you need to make a case for that and reference it. It shouldn't be THAT hard... if it's really true.

Anyway. Even if you can't show that, if you are still dead-set about introducing support for Fräulein, then why not research general word shifts? Make a section called "Support for Fräulein usage." Reference it. Then, you can talk all you like about that movement, which would be encyclopedic. SnowFire 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a highly successful business woman who had lived and worked in Germany until last year. To say that the expression is not used is completely inappropriate. I am unmarried and I am not ashamed of this and do not feel the need to hide it from the world. If anyone, subordinate or superior, addressed me as Fräu, I would politely inform them that I am not a femminist and that it is inappropriate to refer to ANY unmarried woman as Fräu. If it were to happen a second time (which it rarely did) I would take further action against the employee since this action is highly disrespectful; human resources ALWAYS sided with me BTW. From reading the discussion pages as well as your countless edits, it is obvious that this is not what your would like to hear...you would rather hear that it angers women and bla bla bla, but it is a reality that you must accept. Not every woman is a femminist.

Ans 1 To the little girl above, I am a highly successful business woman who thinks you are a troll. Frau - is what the GERMANS have chosen to use. You are a very arrogant ex-foreigner, possibly wanting to hang on to her long gone youth, but very doubtfully successful. Leave it to the GERMANS who have already made up their mind to drop Fraulein - it's a dead word, being resurrected into a completely different meaning now.

Ans 2:That's very touching. As it happens, I don't care what the usage is, believe it or not. I am not the POV crusader on this issue. I do care, however, about truth. Every reliable source I've seen- and I'm friends with some reasonably fluent German speakers- say that usage of fräulein is greatly frowned upon by society. Blame it on over-touchiness after World War II, perhaps. Anecdotes are nice, but do you have any sources? You'll note that my version has two Google links that took about 10 seconds to find that confirm what my sources have said.

---

2. The formal use of Fräulein to translate "Miss" is outdated and should be avoided, not least because the literal translation of Fräulein is "little woman"! You should instead use Frau. (Source: http://www.exeter.ac.uk/german/abinitio/chap1-4.html )

---

Note that in German all women are addressed as Frau (the equivalent of both Mrs and Ms) in formal and business letters.

...the person's basic title Herrn, Frau, Fräulein (use Fräulein only when writing to young girls). (Source: http://www.askoxford.com/languages/de/german_letters/?view=uk )

---

Fräu|lein (abbrev. Frl.) is a German title like Herr or Frau. Usage: "Guten Morgen, Fräulein Müller!" It was used up to around 1980 to address unmarried women, today it's discouraged because it is a diminutive form of Frau and feminists argued that men don't have to disclose their marital status in their title, so why should women?

Today, Fräulein is used to address little girls, sternly or quipping. A young woman addressed in this way might react offended, a grown woman doubly so. (Source: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1088238 )

Heck, I found another source there with another minute of searching. This was not hard. I found 0 sources indicating that Fräulein was acceptable. If you persist, I will bring in proper texts on learning German next.

Assuming your story is in fact true, anecdotes do not make a society. It is misleading and dangerous to let native English speakers think that this usage is fine if society does not, even if you think it's fine. To reiterate, I am not here to fight a battle over whether fräulein should be used; I don't care. The issue is a question of fact: is fräulein frowned upon by German society? SnowFire 01:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________ These "sources" that you cite also place a period after the word "Miss". Hardly a reliable source of neither grammar or etiquette. By the way, my story is not one of the "anecdotes" as you so eloquently put it. Have you ever lived in a German speaking country? It seems from your user page that you have recently edited such articles as "Black Box" and "Magic", hardly evident of any sort of expertise in the German language. Please, check your references and please end it. I have seen your arrogance with respect to the previous editors. It appears that if the article is not written to conform to your point of view, it is incorrect. As someone who has lived in Germany, I can tell you that your version of "reality" is incorrect. I would ask you to please refrain from inserting your personal opinions into the semantics of the beautiful German language. Also, I seldom if ever base my opinions on "Google" when writing articles, as it is easy to find information that is incorrect. It is obvious that you are unaware of how to handle scholarly sources. Finally, what does World War II have to do with this? The use of the term has nothing to do with the Second World War. I have many family members who died as a result of this war, and I do not appreciate your using the war to advance your own particular opinions on the subject. Respectfully yours, Fräulein Anne Schmidt.

Deep breaths...

I will resist the temptation to explain in detail how 90% of your post is utterly irrelevant to anything and willfully misinterprets my above comments. I will only say that Wikipedia has a policy of "No personal attacks" (please read WP:NPA). This is the only thing preventing me from firing back, but you are supposed to address people's arguments, something that your post has failed to do.

You ask me to check my references. I have. So have the many editors above who tried to maintain the article before me. They all say you're wrong. You say they're inaccurate. Fine- it's possible! If you are correct, then you should easily be able to source and reference your claims. You'll note that I mention my friends above, but I don't cite them in the article; they, like you, can only offer anecdotes. Anecdotes are frequently wrong even if well-intentioned; even during a depression, there are a few people who strike it rich and will honestly think that everything's going fine. Put your thoughts to the test and try and reference them. Otherwise (since you brought it up), you'll be like those people who swear up and down that they have magical powers, but can never be bothered to actually, you know, test 'em out and have them verified by reliable sources. The test of Wikipedia is verifiability (see WP:V), which your story does not currently have. SnowFire 13:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I lived and worked in Germany for 10 years and was the CEO of a large corporation. I know how people are addressed and how I insisted on being addressed. Believe it or not, 99% of women were NOT offended by my use of the term. The only women who were were the few "over the hill" old maids (I wonder why they never married!!!) for whom the 1970s was apparently the highlight of their lives. I do not understand the difficulty in this: Frau is only used for MARRIED women (and naturally the few single women who are embarassed by the fact that they never married). As if being married made one complete and not being married was something to be hidden. That is a real progressive idea for women! Fraulein is used for SINGLE women. Just like in the US, not every woman uses Ms. (another feminist invention not supported by mainstream women. Are you aware that nobody has written articles for "Mademoiselle", Signorina, Senorita, and Senhorita (they all re-direct to Miss). I wonder what you would have to say about those terms....Let me guess, they are NEVER used? Women are offended by them? Please give it a rest, 99% of women have much more important things in life to worry about; most of them are non-radicals and prefer the traditional usage. Finally, I sincerely hope you are aware that one does not place a period after "Miss" as it is not an abbreviation of anything. Apparently, those highly reliable, scholarly sources that you found on Google are not aware of this. Therefore, please pass the word that it is "Miss", not "Miss.". Finally, please explain to me how my previous post was irrelevant.

You want to know? I suppose... fine. This may take a bit, though, as it requires understanding how Wikipedia works.

Welcome to Wikipedia. To prevent chaos, there are some guidelines to prevent sheer chaos in editing. On the "frontiers" (little-edited and newer articles), they tend to be more loosely applied, but on important or contentious topics, they become absolutely necessary. One of the most important guidelines is verifiability. Basically, Wikipedia articles should ideally be well-sourced. If an investigator sat down with a Wikipedia article (and people entirely do this), they could look up all the referenced sources and find where the article got its information and the source of each claim. Look at, say, Scotland in the High Middle Ages or Sino-German cooperation (1911-1941) for example- they are featured articles, and have tons of references (80+ for the Scotland article, with a full bibliography!). As an article improves, sources are more and more required for claims. That's not to say that the current version of an article can't be changed or improved, but if you want to introduce something seriously at odds with a sourced part of the article, you need to come providing your own source. This is summed up in the following statement:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

This is at Wikipedia:Verifiability that I suggested you read before, the guideline that mentioned "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." It's so important that I'll say it again:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

It doesn't matter that you know with 100% certainty some fact. It may be true, but until outside sources write about it and confirm it, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If the current consensus of published scientists/writers/journalists/critics/etc. is one way, then Wikipedia will mirror them, even if it turns out that they were incorrect later. Is some startling new discovery a user claims psuedoscience or a genuine breakthrough? As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it doesn't matter. If it turns out to be genuine, Wikipedia will wait for the confirmation.

If you are not okay with this, then I humbly suggest that Wikipedia is not the place for you.

So. Getting back to the point- why are your previous posts mostly irrelevant? The reason is that talk is cheap. Disputed changes need to be backed by verifiable sources. I could go down to an Internet cafe and post here anonymously that Fraeulein is actually "locomotive" in German. It doesn't matter. Others would reference actual German dictionaries to show why I'm wrong, and until I can offer a reputable source that my locomotive theory is correct, it doesn't go in the article. More seriously, another poster here could claim to be a sociologist who's conducted a study of a hundred companies and found attitudes like yours. It wouldn't matter. Talk is cheap, and there's no way to tell that they're telling the truth about this study or even themselves. Of course... if that poster really was a sociologist, he or she would have no problem providing sources, as they could easily reference the journals they read and published in, references in the news media, etc.

Lastly. I said this before, but it apparently did not penetrate. I am not some crazed feminist crusader. If I was, I'd be making your changes in reverse to the Miss article- "All right-thinking English speakers have since abandoned Miss for the more appropriate Ms." or whatever, never mind that that is demonstratably false (Speaking of which, aside- while abbreviating Miss. is not exactly a devastating mistake, I checked both websites, and the period was due to the end of a sentence, not an error. Nice try.). I stumbled on this article quite by accident. However, it is my good-faith understanding that German society frowns upon the usage of Fraeulein, an understanding that has been confirmed by multiple sources. I have made no comment in the article nor on the talk page about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, merely that it is true.

If you believe that German society is actually accepting of Fraeulein and its shunning has been blown out of proportion... prove your case. Not with stories and ancedotes, but verifiable sources- newspapers, scholarly articles, style guides, books, whatever. If you can show yourself correct from those, then you are more than welcome to change the article. SnowFire 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, take a look at this link: http://www.answers.com/topic/fr-ulein

Answers.com quotes the American Heritage Dictionary and states that Fraulein is: 1) Used as a courtesy title in a German-speaking area before the name of an unmarried woman or girl. 2) Used as a form of polite address for a girl or young woman in a

You will note that the American Heritage Dicionary does not describe the term as outdated or controversial in any way. You will also note that answers.com chose MY version of the wikipedia article to cite on their website.

Well, answers.com was quoting the American Heritage Dictionary. It is generally not appropriate for a dictionary to comment on usage. Colored, for instance, is not polite to use when referring to black people in the United States, but a dictionary will properly record the meaning none-the-less ( http://www.answers.com/topic/colored ) . Secondly, answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia. There is no editorial step where content is "chosen"; it mirrors all content on a given date. You have only proved that your version was active when Wikipedia did a backup suitable for forking. SnowFire 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow... may I chime in? Because... I quote the Duden (which is the ultimate supreme source for all things German) from 1983: "Fräulein (...) 2a) (veraltend) titelähnliche, auch als Anrede verwendete (heute weitgehend von "Frau" ersetzte) Bez. für eine unverheiratete weibliche Person" - "Fräulein (...) 2a) (obsolescent) title-like term that is also used as an adress (today mostly replaced by "Frau") for an unmarried female person"; now add 23 years to that, and Fräulein is fast approaching "obsolete" instead of "obsolescent". Baranxtu 12:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me add from the position of a person who's lived in Austria for two decades that NOONE uses "Fräulein" today any longer. I mean literally noone. —Nightstallion (?) 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so any approach to the article that does not conform to your modernist perspective is vandalism, despite the extent to which it reflects the reality of the German language? Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance.

You were the one who stopped talking. The way to solve disputes on Wikipedia is through discussion, something I have always been open to- you have preferred to revert instead. At first, sure, it's a content/NPOV dispute. Even once a content dispute continues along the path of repeated reverts without bothering to even attempt to discuss things- especially when these reverts remove material that is well backed-up, as you'll note from comments above- it's still not necessarily vandalism, although it is extremely bad etiquette. The real kicker is that you're doing this from AOL's anonymous IPs while not logged in. If you were doing it from a registered account, then worst comes to worst, we could start one of WP's various dispute resolution processes. But no. You're hiding behind anonimity where the only thing we can do is semi-protect the page. When things sink that far, then it becomes vandalism, yes.

As for "modernist" perspective, for the third and last time: no, my perspective is called "reality." Convince me that the reality is otherwise, and I'll change my mind. SnowFire 01:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if the use of AOL causes me to be labeled a vandal, I will register.

Latest Revision

Here is a version that both sides should be able to live with. While it does not imply, as did the other versions, that the term is never used, it also is not as anti-feminist as some previous versions. Any thoughts? (UTC)

I personally think your revision is the best that I have seen thus far. It presents an OBJECTIVE description of the term, the only sort of description that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. However, judging from the previous comments, you should have known that a revert was inevitable. I will do my best to keep an eye on the article, but it may be an exercise in futility. I am all but certain that one of the "administrators" will keep reverting and refuse to explain the reverts on the discussion page. Then, once they see that someone is challenging their opinions, they will either block the user or protect the page. Frankly, I am surprised that your version lasted as long as it did. Anyway, good job and thank you for your articulate and professional contribution. J. Martinez. 201.79.62.12 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording around a bit to bring it in line with the discussions of usage here. Dalassa 06:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it around a bit; trust me, I've lived in Austria since my birth and I have not *once* heard anyone addressed as "Fräulein". It can occasionally be heard in older movies, but that's about it. —Nightstallion (?) 23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And again...

Dear anonymous revert warrior,

I really detest doing that. Revert wars are unproductive and unwiki. However, the matter has been discussed quite extensively, and there seems to be a sort of consensus that your position is more in agreement with wishful thinking than with reality. If you want to have your views represented in the article, you will have to convince others of their merits. Vandalising userpages and simply reverting Fräulein again and again is not likely to achieve that.

As for the content question, I have lived in Germany all my life and been in contact with people from every imaginable social background; the only person I have ever met who actually used "Fräulein" was a spinster in her seventies who wished to be adressed thusly, and that was in the 1970s, so it's likely that her views were mostly those of the 1920s or such. Now, my experience would qualify as original research and therefore not a valid source; however, I do agree with those who have described the position that you oppose simply as reality. If you want to challenge a widely accepted fact, the burden of proof is upon you. Kosebamse 15:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The "term" Fräulein is almost never used in Germany. The only situation it is used is to make fun of a woman. There may be older women who like to be referred to as Fräulein, but I never met one. Most women will feel ridiculed or insulted. Not because of feminism, but because I feel the term is inappropriate for a modern women. Very funny discussion tho. Keep up the good work. --Kleiderseller 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody qualified to write on this subject should be able to read de:Fräulein, which correctly describes recent changes in usage. The dispute that is being rehashed here has been settled in Germany for more than a decade. Apart from political or ideological considerations, there is no dispute present-day Germany that Fräulein is at least outdated. Why are we even having this discussion? --ThorstenNY 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some may consider it outdated, possibly. However, it remains used extensively by educated members of German society and those concerned with proper etiquette. Kaiser1877 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The dispute clearly remains. It is therefore inappropriate for one of the sides to simply remove the {Disputed} template. Besides, Fräulein is not being used extensively anywhere in German society. If you had any facts to back up your claims, why aren't you or anybody else "correcting" de:Fräulein? --ThorstenNY 07:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Kaiser. And to Kleiderseller, just because YOU feel that the term is inappropriate for modern women, the speakers of the German language do not. Piononno 01:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not about feelings. It's about reality. Are you a speaker of the German language? I very much doubt that. The german wikipedia is very clear about that topic. "Fräulein" is completely outdated. No question about that. --84.133.24.154 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever German speakers may or may not feel, they simply aren't saying (or writing) Fräulein any more. --ThorstenNY 07:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fräulein is used for unmarried women and Frau is used for married women. There is no dispute on that. Just because some people do not like the term Fräulein, we should not pander to them in an encyclopedia article and say that the term is never used.Kaiser1877 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the point: The vast majority of Germans do not use Fräulein to address or describe unmarried women. If you bothered to consider the overwhelming empirical evidence as well as de:Fräulein, you shoud see that you just can't win this one. --ThorstenNY 20:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Comtemporary Usage of Fräulein in German-speaking Countries

I would appreciate other editors' comments on this issue. User:Kaiser1877 and others, please note that a WP:RFC is a formal part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. Please do take part in this process—or refrain from unsubstantiated reverts. Thanks. --ThorstenNY 20:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the shunning of Fräulein is definitely exaggerated. Some women may not wish to disclose their marital status, but the vast majority of women do not care and prefer the traditional usage. In fact, I lived in Germany up until last year, and my bank statements address me as Fräulein. Piononno 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC) I could not agree more. It seems that the above user feels we should treat de:Fräulein as the fifth gospel for some odd reason. Just because an article is written in another language, it is not necessarily true. What is this empirical evidence that he speaks of? So far, that particular user has offered no evidence, excpect for his nearly constant references to de:Fräulein. Kaiser1877 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what agenda you are pushing, but every German knows you are not telling the truth.--84.133.24.154 05:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I could also go under an anonymous IP and post that other users are liars, but I would not expect anyone to take me seriously. Kaiser1877 19:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I have listed Kaiser1877 and Piononno as suspected sock puppets here. I think the sock puppetry used to simulate support in this discussion is beyond obvious and I'm striking the comments of Kaiser1877 to signify that. Darkspots 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This matter has gone on long enough. To summarize all the above discussion, on the one hand there are a number of established Wikipedia editors who have argued, out of personal knowledge and verifiable sources, that the term "Fräulein" is mostly if not entirely obsolete. A partial list:

• User:KF
• User:SnowFire
• User:Baranxtu
• User:Nightstallion
• User:Kosebamse
• User:ThorstenNY

On the other hand there is a single human being, who can be identified as User:Kaiser1877, and the variety of IP addresses and socks that he or she has used over time to edit this article. This person has a distinctive style that can be seen through all the edits, particularly an insistence that "educated" speakers of German use "Fräulein" to address all unmarried women. Often this user refers to second-wave feminism as the force attempting to stamp out the use of "Fräulein". This page has been protected a number of times because of this user, and he or she has been reverted at least fifty times. Editors have tried at length to explain the nature of Wikipedia and the difference between baseless assertions and verifiable facts.

This person has repeatedly changed what the sources that SnowFire added to the article say. One example out of many: [1].

I think this kind of misrepresentation clearly shows an editor who is trying to undercut the nature of Wikipedia--an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources--who is willing to try a variety of dishonest tactics, including sockpuppetry, to distort the factual nature of this article. I think that any further edits to this article recognized as being made by this user can be reverted as vandalism and accounts blocked if vandalism persists. Unless any established editor disagrees with this, I think this is how we should proceed. Darkspots 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I am not a sock of any other user.

I made the above edits n good faith because I have lived in Germanfor the past 25 years. I think that you are guily of the POV pushing, not me. This dispute has been going on for over 2 years, surely you do not believe that this has all been the work of one editor?

If what you are saying is true, then source it with good references. Your experiences don't count. SnowFire 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would think that as an experienced user, you or somebody else would help be re-write the article properly. However, it seems much easier to just write my edits off as vandalism since everyone seems to like the nice progressive, politically correct version of the article that exists now. Piononno 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the political implications. If you think that the current article is wrong and the sources dug up by myself and others are wrong, then prove it, or at least prove that a controversy exists. Sources, please, not rhetoric. SnowFire 02:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, maybe you could point me in the right direction because you ae an experienced editor. Piononno 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I found nothing with a google search that really backs you up. I found a NYT article about Austria in the 80s that's maybe a little closer, suggesting that reasonably young unmarried women are called "Fräulein", but it doesn't try to definitively answer the question, just indicates that all women, married or unmarried, are called "Frau" when they reach a certain age. And SnowFire's sources indicate that usage seems to have changed dramatically since then, which is the point a lot of people have made. The article doesn't help you much and contradicts your central point, which is that all unmarried women are called "Fräulein". I'm not trying to set this up as a straw man--I really couldn't find anything better for your side of the story. I think the real answer is that nobody's going to find a reliable source to prove your argument. Darkspots 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, in general, you need to do research. That means finding books or other sources that would cover the issue. Step 1 is the simple Google test; it's what I did when I noticed the issue and what Darkspots did as well. That said, all the sources I found online said that Fraulein was out of usage (I was not cherry picking links). However, I only searched in English. After that, there's reference material on German usage, in both German and English. This is actually the best source; style guides and grammar books and the like. However, as noted above, the 1983 Duden seems to indicate that Fraulein is out of usage as well. Now, maybe other sources indicate otherwise, but that's the kind of material you'll want. What won't work is a single modern usage of Fraulein; of course some people still use it. You need to find recent guidelines or studies of proper usage of German, from a source of notable stature. SnowFire 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This article was found on careerjournal.com (the Wall Street Jorunal Executive Career Site) and instructs foreigners visiting the German speaking parts of Switzerland to address waitresses as Fraulein. It mentions nothing about the term being considered offensive or inappropriate. Please see here: http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/workabroad/countries/switzerland.html Is the Wall Street Journal considered to be of sufficient notable stature? Piononno 20:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. It doesn't support any of your arguments, but by all means the fact that waitresses in Switzerland are addressed as "Fräulein" should be in the article. Just like waiters in France used to be addressed as "Garçon". It's useful--it marks a remaining, conservative usage--the Swiss are noted for being conservative. Darkspots 21:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not claiming that this one source alone would be sufficient. However, it is a start and at the very least, it serves to refute the "never used" and "all women find it offensive" theories. Wouldn't you agree? Piononno 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not on opposite sides of the spectrum here in terms of the usage of the word "Fräulein". I want sourced, verifiable facts in the article. You're perfectly happy to change sources to say what you want or ignore them--that's the difference between you and me, not any kind of political difference. Regarding the usage for waitresses, the France section of the same website where you found the Swiss source says "Madame is used for all adult women, married or single, over 18 years of age (except for waitresses, which are addressed as Mademoiselle.)" That's just one example of the phenomenon that exists in many cultures that people who serve food in restaurants get treated with less respect than the general population. Nobody is claiming that they like it, or that those specific uses correspond to the culture at large. I don't wave my hand at my accountant to get her attention, for instance, even though I pay her for her services. Darkspots 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may be true that this is not indicative of the culture as a whole. However, my point was that this source is proof that the above editors who insisited that "the term is NEVER used", the ones that you were so quick to defend, were incorrect. I will work on getting more sources to support my arguments regarding Fräulein, but so far, with very little effort, I was able to prove untrue the whole "Fräulein is never used" argument. I too realize that the term has declined in popularity. Nevertheless, the term is not completely obsolete, as is evident from this article. I found this article on google in less than 3 minutes. Now if the above editors were as open minded and neutral about the subject as they claimed to be, why could they not have found this article? I assume that they already had their minds made up about this Fraulein before engaging in any research. Also, why do you insist that a waitress being referred to as Fräulein or Mademoiselle indicates that they are being treated with less respect? If I, as a woman, choose to be referred to as Miss than I have less respect for myself than if I were to choose Mrs. or Ms.? Piononno 04:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the source about waitresses shows exactly what it shows and no more. I've rewritten the article to say that Fräulein is used for young girls and waitresses, and is no longer used for unmarried women that do not fall into one of those two categories. I've cut out all the unsourced material about feminists, elderly speakers, etc. It's very clear that, going forward, the section about usage in this article must contain sourced material only. I'm not going to continue to argue with you, because my only opinion about Fräulein is that this should be an article based on verifiable facts. I don't speak a word of German.

For everyone else, Piononno and Kaiser1877 were determined to be sockpuppets of the same user, based on my accusation. Piononno is the account that was not indef blocked. Darkspots 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Observation about the use of Fräulein

To whoever edits the page... The usage of Fräulein for a waitress is highly inappropriate. While there may be some regions where this still is acceptable, I highly advise not to use 'Fräulein' in ANY way or context when adressing a woman. FYI: I am german and 'Fräulein' is considered highly offensive. Also it is not used as a title to adress young female children. That is simply false. Except when used as a warning or scolding e.g. by parents! The usage may be overlooked if it is clear that you are a foreigner. But don't count on it. 23:00, September 04, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.119.225 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 September 2007

This point has been made a number of times by people who claim to be German speakers. See Talk:Fräulein#And again... above. If the article is wrong, change it, and refer to sources that everyone has access to. The article has a source claiming that "Fräulein" is used to beckon waitresses. Find better sources that refute the point. Ask me for help if you have sources that you would like to have included in the article. Darkspots 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fräulein was and maybe is used in some cases when adressing waitresses, but it is not recommended any more. Instead "Hallo" or "Entschuldigung" is used to adress the waitress. If you plan to go too germany the best advice is not to use the term at all. Otherwise you will get your drinks considerably later and your chance of fraternising with some of those young ladies formerly known as fräuleins will be zero. On the other hand if you don't plan to jump over the pond you may as well believe whatever you like. :)

The following is a funny story about that waitress issue. Unfortunately I couldn't find an English translation. So this isn't a source to back up anything in the English wikipedia. Recommended for the german speaking folks tho. [2]--Kleiderseller 01:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion is veering into a general discussion of the term "Fräulein", which isn't the purpose of this talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for specific guidelines on this. Without being able to understand German, it seems like this link is to an anecdote--what would move the article forward would be a reliable source that would back up what you folks are saying, not personal experience and illustrative stories. Darkspots 01:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you're young, the waitress is likely to be about your age. In that case, if you use Fräulein, then at least for the time being you ruin your chance of addressing her by first-name or using the familiar pronouns. Fräulein always goes together with surname and the courtesy pronouns, and when you've started to say Sie, the change towards Du is not done lightly.--2001:A60:1500:8701:95C2:F342:199C:A7AD (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

November 2007

I re-wrote the article to state that Fraulein is used mostly by elderly or conservative speakers. It seems that a user edited the article from the prespective that Fraulein is not used at all. Please see previous versions of the article (from March, 2005 for example) written by more experienced users. ReadyFreddie (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We have gone over this ground a number of times, haven't we? The "perspective" from which I have edited this article is that the article should be based on reliable sources. So, here goes: Please don't remove reliable sources from the article. Please provide sources for your assertions. Please don't engage in sockpuppetry. Thank you. Darkspots (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Followup: I have accused ReadyFreddie of sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Piononno. Darkspots (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you were praising the work of user *User:Kosebamseon this very talk page back in July. The version that I reverted to was based on that user's version from March 5, 2005. Please see the history of the article. If you feel that you are more qualified to write about the subject than kosebamse and all of the other editors such as *User:Nightstallion and *User:SnowFire ,et al that is one thing. However, do not accuse me of vandalism for reverting to versions that have been supported by so many other editors. Also, I am not a sock puppet; the difference between my version of the article and that of the other IPS is that I acknowledge that Fraulein has gone out of style and is considered derogatory while the other users insisted that "educated" speakers of German always use the term. Hardly the same thing. Just because more than 1 editor do not like your revisions , they are not necessarily sockpuppets. ReadyFreddie (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The source of my inconsistency: I have no viewpoint about the word "Fräulein". Other users have found new sources. I've helped incorporate them into the article. As reliable, useful sources emerge, what the article says about the word evolves. I have no qualification to write this article, and I've never claimed one. I respect sources at their face value. When you had your User:Piononno hat on and found a source, I put the sucker in the article. The thing is, it's on the WSJ site as an advice-to-travelers help page; it's not a WSJ article. There's a difference there. The Duden article trumps the WSJ advice page, which seems a little stale.

I find your statement about "more than 1 editor" a pretty clear argument for the sockpuppet policy. I'm confident that this case will get decided the same way as the first, despite your defense.

I'm sticking around this article because you have little respect for sources. Here's the diff where you delete all of them: [3]. That, my friend, is an attempt to destroy the careful work of others. Vandalism? That's what folks call it around here. Darkspots (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove the sources to distort the meaning of the article; it was done merely to simplify the article and make it more user friendly. You still did not answer the question that I asked on the sockpuppet case's page. Why did you accuse me of inserting the "little can seem condescending" comment, when it was done by User:SnowFire. ReadyFreddie (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did take me an hour to respond to you on that page. Sorry about the delay. OK, you took a section of an article that met the standard of Wikipedia:Verifiability and replaced it with one that you thought was "simpler" and more "user-friendly". Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, not statements that are unverifiable but sound better. Please read the policy article on the subject, and then revert yourself the the version that has all the sources. From then on, only add things to the article that you have Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to back up. Thanks! Darkspots 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the March, 2005 version. It seems that this is the version that was written before all of this conflict started about the current usage. ReadyFreddie 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I finally put together the evidence to conclusively prove that ReadyFreddie is the same user as Piononno: [4]. A bit involved, but I'm putting this chapter of the Fräulein Vandal to bed, and restoring the current version of the article. Darkspots 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fräulein

I don't get the attention by sock puppeteers and others and I don't understand why this German noun is on English Wikipedia. I am a German. When I was a kid, we used to use the term for young, unwed ladies or girls. Crusty old Gymnasium teachers may still use it because that is what they grew up with. Whoever struggles with that won't, when he or she gets older and clings to some older terminology. As early as the nineties, Germans pretty much dropped the term for the reasosn stated here. I don't see why any English speaking people would argue about that. The Duden reference is correct and everything else is nonsense. --Achim 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with you. The article as it is right now, is not only incorrect in large parts, but also very confusing. I went to Gymnasium in the early and mid nineties. Nobody called us Fräulein, we would have been very offended by that! Even the formal 'Sie' in the upper classes was refused by the students. I acknowledge that in the schools with longer a history then mine this may/is still be used. The "crusty old Gymnasium teacher" no longer exists, I mean do the math. Most teachers nowadays started their career after 1968 and the social changes that followed this. And who is more believable on german usage the english Oxford Dictionary or the officially recognized german Duden which coincidently tells us the same as the german 'Fräulein' article does? Strangely enough, i have seen people tinkering with that article as well. Political agenda, anyone? --77.6.96.23 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ich verstehe nur nicht zu welchem Zweck der Artikel überhaupt hier ist und warum sich Ausländer darüber streiten. Gibt es nicht wichtigere Themen? Was soll diese geistige Selbstbefriedigung hier? --Achim (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly get the point either, but as long as we're going to have a page here at the English WP, it might as well be sourced and reasonably accurate. I think that the primary problem with the OED reference is not that the dictionary itself is particularly wrong (although it is perhaps a touch outdated), but that the Wikipedia article is using the reference to justify statements far beyond what the source says. I'll cut the speculation about gymnasium students out. Darkspots (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As a followup to the original question of the thread, I would point out that English is an incredibly acquisitive language. "Fräulein" is in dictionaries of English, even shorter ones, and I would imagine that the term is understood by most speakers of English. It was used in a lot of movies like The Sound of Music, after the war--a lot of American soldiers did a tour in Germany throughout the Cold War, and their experiences became part of American popular culture as well. Darkspots (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a random comment on the waitress issue: For whatever reason -- perhaps that waitresses are the closest thing to servants the average American has contact with anymore -- it is not uncommon for them to be spoken to in terms which would be considered demeaning if used to address someone else, such as the accountant mentioned above. The average person would not say to their accountant "Honey, could you go over the section about amortization one more time?" but they would think nothing of saying "Honey, could you get me another cup of coffee?" to a waitress. I don't presume to offer more than a wild guess as to the reason, but it happens entirely too often to be ignored. And, for whatever reason, it seems to be limited to waitresses. I don't hear the cashiers at my grocery store or the floor staff at a big discount store being addressed that way, but it is rare for me to dine at a restaurant without hearing some expression of the kind. In a discussion elsewhere (just random chatter on some forum or blog comments, so I doubt if I can find it again) a man (self-identified) said he spoke that way "to be friendly", which might point to people feeling a closer and less formal connection with the woman giving them food (a wife/mother symbol?), too. Who knows? That's for sociologists to figure out. My only point here is that this form of addressing waitresses seems to remain in use in the US, and it's possible that is also the case elsewhere in the world.

Also, I replaced the phrase "politically correct", as that has become a very loaded term (all too often meaning "anything I disagree with") and seems, to me at least, to be injecting POV. I have no dog in this fight -- I was just looking up the spelling! -- so I think it's fair to say if that phrase looks POV to me, it probably will to others. Worldwalker (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In a bizarre coincidence, I made the same point about people who serve food versus accountants above: [5]. Regarding how waitresses are addressed, we have two sources that say different things, so the article (currently) presents both points of view. Darkspots (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a coincidence. I deliberately echoed your use of accountants to continue what I thought was a very appropriate example. I'm a sucker for reading talk pages, even for articles I have just a passing interest in. I think it's the same thing that makes me always buy the deluxe edition of movie DVDs, the one with the "making of" documentaries: I'm fascinated by how things were built. So, yeah, I read all the wikidrama (and your accountants) before I posted that. Worldwalker (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, how silly of me. Happy New Year! Darkspots (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Video game reference

I think the fact a video game character uses the term Fräulein to be much less culturally notable than the other items in the culture section. Demonstration that third-party sources mention the video game's use of the term would affect my thoughts on the matter, depending on the importance of the sources. Darkspots (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the sentence

In the game Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney the main prosecutor Klavier Gavin refers to almost every woman he meets as Fräulein[but the game director admitted that he meant "slut" by it, referring to Eva Brau's nickname by Hitler].

at all. Who is the "game director"? In what sense was Eva Braun (Hitler's long time girlfriend, and eventually his wife) a "slut"? I think this term refers to promiscuity, not to involvement with Nazis?

--Austrian (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the "slut" business was put in by an IP vandal with this edit. I reverted that. So we're back to the version that has the video game reference but nothing about Eva Braun. I still think the video-game mention is unreferenced and should be removed, but I'd like someone else to do it to demonstrate consensus. Darkspots (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed it. --Austrian (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation of the Duden reference

"Den verstocktesten Gleichberechtigungsmuffeln" poses a little problem. While "Muffel" for itself could be translated as "curmudgeon", "sourpuss" or such, that is unfortunately not the case for the Gleichberechtigungsmuffel and similar creatures. The composite "-muffel", a particularly ugly usage of German by the way, refers to someone who refuses to accept something. In this case, therefore, the meaning is "someone who refuses to accept equal rights". Any ideas for a handy translation? Kosebamse (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What popups?

Are there any popups in the revisions from 18:53, 6 March 2009 or 08:46, 6 March 2009? I didn't see any, but I don't want to revert to the factually correct version in case it's really broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anke (talk • contribs)

No, the revert just used popups. Revert away. Inkwell (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to this article

There have been repeated changes to this article recently to remove references, change factual information and introduce what I see as clear bias. I am not German, so I may be wrong, of course. But perhaps it would be beneficial if editors could discuss potential changes here before making them?

In particular, the references currently back up the idea that Fraulein is not in common usage in Germany to refer to unmarried women. If an editor believes this to be incorrent, then we would need sources/references that support this. Would the editor(s) repeatedly reverting or editing the article please discuss reasons for doing? I would be interested in finding an agreement here. Inkwell (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should be rewritten according to the example of the German wikipedia article about the term Fräulein which is much more complete an gives a more objective picture about the different points of view of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruccula (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) --- reinserting contribution that was deleted ([6]) by IP on Nov, 21. --Kobraton (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinionated Changes from IP since November 2010

I am going to revert the highly opinionated changes to this article from IP 24.128.247.159 that started on Nov 6, 2010. The IP has stripped the article of most of its contents, completely changed the information and even deleted a contribution on the talk page. The IP has since reverted every attempt to find more moderate wordings by various users. The old article (that had existed for more than a year) had citations to prove its contents, the new version has not. --Kobraton (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I just made some changes to the article. I find the Duden references quite lengthy and overly verbose. Also, I think the translations were a bit much. I could see showing how the term translates into the Romance Languages, such as French and Italian, but come on-Chinese and Japanese???? Also, I removed those foolish video game refereces. This article should be discussing German symantics and stylistics, not video games. JohnBoughton2 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your changes are pretty much the same I only just reverted. You are most likely the same person as said IP, as your account is only a few minutes old. A bot has already recognized that your posts aren't constructive, as it has automatically reverted your first change. Why do you just delete any reference the article has? You find the Duden reference verbose - that is completely irrelevant as long as its correct. And you don't come up with any reference whatsoever to prove your very speculative view. Please refrain from further reverts and leave the version that persisted for over a year. --Kobraton (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no. I think editors should work out a compromise on this article that everyone finds acceptable. Just because the current version has been there for more than a year, it doesn't mean it can never be altered. If you feel that the term is "never used", prove it or at least state your opinion here. So far, all you have done is revert. Just so you know, I am not going to get into an edit war with you. If you want to keep reverting, that's fine, but I am interested in fixing this article. Hopefully, other users will get involved. JohnBoughton2 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to get into an edit war, that's good. Neither do I. And I agree that the persistence of the 'old' version does not have to be a proof of its quality, though it might be an indication. Your goal is to fix the article - good, I want it to be correct, too. So let's talk about the subject: I didn't say the term ist "never used", and neither did the 'old' version of the article. The main problem I have regarding the two versions: One has 4 citations to prove its contents, the other one has none. You have deleted the citations and rewritten the paragraph, not providing any evidence for your assumptions. And that is why I think the 'old' version should be restored. That said, I can also tell from my personal knowledge that the 'old' version correctly describes the facts. For what it's worth, I'm German and I know that the average German unmarried woman doesn't want to be adressed as 'Fräulein', but 'Frau'. That is especially true in a work-related context, where 'Fräulein' is very inappropriate. For these reasons, I hope that we can agree on restoring the old version. --Kobraton (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's look for some references and come up with a new version of the article. As I said, the old version contained a lot of nonesense such as the video game reference and translations of the term into several irrelevant languages. JohnBoughton2 (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it's your job to find references for your opinion. The 'old' version of the article has references. If you believe they are wrong, you should come up with good references that prove your point. Until then, there is no need for a change in the article. So I think we should restore the old, sourced version and then discuss further changes here based on the evidence we have. That's why I'd like to do one last revert, if that is ok with you. --Kobraton (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted as announced. Feel free to bring new evidence, I'll be glad to keep the discussion alive. If you want take my word for it, trust me that the article is a good representation of the facts now. --Kobraton (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took be so long to respond; I was out on Wikibreak. I do not have a problem with your reverting to the prior version until some new references are found. However, I made a few changes. I removed that foolish video game references, as well as translations of the term into countless obscure languages. Also, I removed the unsourced comment: "Because the term means "little woman," it is often considered offensive when applied to adults" (see WP:Be Bold). JohnBoughton2 (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. So much for "keeping the discussion alive"24.128.247.159 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

controversy

I don't understand how such an obscure article could have 5+ years worth of controversy, but with that being said, I have lived in Switzerland for many years, and I personally am not offended by Fraulein. In fact, I prefer it since it let's all the "herren" know I am available. However, I think the article could be better cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.15 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand that either. In terms of citation: Well the other version was quite well cited. And please, don't open a new section for one comment and don't edit other user's contributions on the talk page. --Kobraton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

I added an image showing the cultural use of the word. Hopefully, nobody will find this "offensive" 24.128.247.159 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert too. Since the user is obvously NOT interested in discussing ways to improve the article 24.128.247.159 (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia doesn't not just accept the word of people who claim to be knowledgeable. In order to make that addition, you need a reliable source that verifies that "educated speakers" recognize something. Furthermore, the change from Duden to "Some feminists" is certainly wrong, because "some feminists" is a classic weasel word. Just like the opinion you want to add needs to be attributed to a specific person/group/reliable source, the opinion that the term is incorrect is properly attributed as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a weasel word, as it's true. Which group finds the term offensive? Muslims? Jews? Russians? Bavarians? The answer is FEMINISTS. If you want SOURCES just type "Fraulein" and "feminists" into google and you will get at least 50 articles that discuss this. I love how some people are so politically correct, they can't even rationalize. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's strange how everyone seems to have these strong opinions on this article, yet nobody can bother to actually discuss the article on the talk page. 15:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.247.159 (talk)

I think you misunderstand what a weasel word is. See WP:WEASEL. These are words that intentionally fail to explicitly state who thinks or claims a certain opinion. On Wikipedia, we try to never do this. The most extreme example is "Some people say..." So, for example, when I read "Feminists claim," my automatic question is "which feminists?" This is especially true in a case like this where you're dealing with a very large group of people who disagree about a large number of things. I would be willing to bet that some feminists don't like the word, some do, and others simply don't care. As such, it's far far better to specifically attribute it to Duden, because then we know who specifically made the claim. If others have also made the claim, we can site them and attribute the claim more widely as well. This has nothing to do with "political correctness", whatever that means. It has to do with Wikipedia's rules on WP:NPOV requiring all opinions to be properly linked to a specific source. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

I added a tag questioning the neutrality of this article. It seems that this article was written from the perspective that the term is no longer used. The POV of this article is beyond obvious. It seems as though some editors are more concerned about being politically correct than the stating the facts. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop leveling the term "politically correct". I am willing to accept that the term is article isn't neutral (I haven't looked at it too closely yet), but some people (like myself) find the term PC to be both wrong and a way of hiding real form of discrimination. As a side note, your last edit is personal opinion, and so I'm going to remove it as well (also, you broke the reference that was there, which you should be careful of). You can't fix POV problems just by adding other unsourced POV. Now, if you can find a source that says "Others, such as Source X, argue that the use of the term Fräulein is acceptable so long as the person being called that term approves of it.(insert reference here)."

I'll try to look at the article in more detail later to get a better feeling for how neutral it is or isn't, and then we should see what can be done. But, again, you have to understand neutrality correctly: if the majority opinion of sourceable, reliable opinion on this is that Fraulein is no longer an accepted term, then our article should reflect that. NPOV doesn't mean we treat all viewpoints equally--it means we treat them equal to the proportion of that opinion being held in the real world, and we source everything scrupulously. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you removed the tag on the article. When an editor expresses concern that an article does not represent a neutral point of view and adds the tag, it is not supposed to be removed until some sort of a consensus is arrived at. So where is the consensus? Or should we just take your word for it? 24.128.247.159 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies--I should not have removed the POV tag. I was trying to fix the other problem (the broken reference and the insertion of unsourced POV); I forgot to re-add the POV tag. You are correct that for now that tag belongs on the article until we can either fix it or get consensus it doesn't belong. Again, my apologies, as I didn't mean to remove it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. I would really appreciate it if you could help me with this article. Like I said, so many editors seem to have such strong opinions on the subject of the article, yet no one seems to care enough to actually try to get the article fixed. Instead, all they choose to do is revert. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP, I really start to wonder what your motivation in this article is all about. You don't seem to be from a German-speaking country, and you don't come up with any evidence, so where does your opinion come from in the first place? No offence meant! But until now you really haven't brought any evidence whatsoever. I would like to present a new reference from the German article on "Fräulein": [7]. (Written by a Japanese German language specialist.) It is in German, there is an English summary though:
"Even into the 1970s, honorific titles in German included Fräulein for unmarried women, but in 1972, the Minister of the Interior banned it from official use; since then, it has largely disappeared from everyday speech as well. The feeling was that as it marked a difference in marital status, it was discriminatory. We nonetheless still encounter the term in newspapers. In this study, with the help of Süddeutsche-Zeitung archives(1994-200), we shall investigate whether, if it continues to be used, it refers to present situations and to what extent such differs from earlier usage. Finally, we shall demonstrate that while its function as a marital-status marker has faded into the background, Fräulein has come to be associated primarily with positive values: youthfulness, freshness, dynamism."
What we learn from that: One - Fräulein is banned from official use. Two - It has disappeared from everyday speech. Three - no more use as a maritial-status marker. The word is, according to this, still used, though. But have a look at the statistical data Okamura presents later in the article: In 12 years, the newspaper used the words 'Fräulein' and 'Fräuleins' (genitive form) a total of 1,467 times (compared to 92,221 times 'Frau'). In more than half of those cases (784), it was used in a reference to the time before 1972. Only in 636 cases, it was used in reference to the time after 1972, in 124 of which it referred to characters from literature (mainly the German translation of Miss Smilla's Feeling for Snow). I think this helps do give an impression of how little the term is in fact used nowadays, and to add some facts and neutrality to the article. --Kobraton (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

IP, Kobraton has gotten at the point--if you believe the article is biased, you need to produce reliable sources to demonstrate a point of view not currently included. These sources, presumably, would explain that some people continue to prefer the use of the term, or that people disagree with the terms removal from official parlance, or whatever. Note that these references don't need to be in English--I'm guessing that some of the editors here (not me) can read German, and we can always get rough machine translations to start. If you can't get references to support your opinion that the term is not widely deprecated, then we'll have to remove the POV tag from the article. However, no particular rush on that-a week or so should give you time to find such references. Also, Kobraton, I think that article is a good one to add, as it helps clarify both the historical changes (especially the government change) along with a good contemporary analysis. Since I'm gathering that you can read the original, would you like to propose some text? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems we are not getting anywhere here. It looks like the only "sources" that some editors will accept are the ones that say the term is offensive or that it is never used. I really wish someone could add some value to the article rather than constantly reverting it. Not all women are "offended" by a courtesy title. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere because you haven't added a single reliable source yet. Maybe you're not understanding what a source is in Wikipedia terms. A reliable source is not the opinion of an editor. A reliable source is an article published in a newspaper or reliable magazine, a factual television program (like a documentary or news program), an article in a scholarly journal, etc. For more details, please read Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources; you should probably also read Wikipedia's policies on original research. You can't just assert without evidence that "educated Germans" think anything, either way--that's not a "source." If you produce a reliable source that supports the statements you want to add and meets the standards of WP:DUE, then we will find a way to phrase it and add it. Did I somehow miss in the history your addition of a reliable source? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked earlier what I meant by "politically correct", and this is exactly it. A user finds a newspaper article that says the term is "discriminatory...since it marked a difference in marital status." Come on. Discriminatory? Some people will call "discrimination" at the most trivial thing. When people do that, it diminishes our awareness to identify the many instance of real discrimination that exist in modern society. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but unless you find a reliable source for your opinion, it can't be added to the article. And if such a source can't be found in a reasonable time, the POV tag should be removed. POV in our sense doesn't mean that something includes sourced opinions, it means that the opinions expressed don't adequately match those found across reliable sources. If all you want to do is to express your opinion that the term is acceptable, then there are zillion and a half places on the internet where you can do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You said that I had a week to find the sources. It is going to take me a few days to research all the German and English sources available on the internet. It seems though that I am the only one interested in locating the sources. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN--since you're the one that wants to add the info, it's up to you to provide the sources. Note that you can take as much time as you need to add them (the article will still be here), just that I don't think it's reasonable for the POV tag to stay up indefinitely if you can't produce evidence that it's not neutral. I don't mean to set a hard deadline, but I just feel that we need more than the assertion of one or two editors to offset the sourced claims currently in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is in a pretty bad shape right now. Qwyrxian, you asked me to propose some text. Here you go: "Fräulein was the German language honorific used for unmarried women, comparable to Miss in English. Fräulein is the diminutive form of Frau, which used to be the honorific for married women only. Since the 1970s, Fräulein has largely dropped out of use in both formal and everyday language. As it indicated the marital status, it was felt to be discriminatory. Nowadays, it is common to adress all grown women as Frau regardless of marital status. Adressing a woman as Fräulein is regarded inappropriate unless she has specifically requested to be adressed as that." Im not sure this is written in perfect English, but the contents is correct and can be sourced with the available references. The article could go into greater detail after that, but I think this might be enough for the first paragraph. What do you think? --Kobraton (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks really good to me, as long as it can be supported. The two main claims that look like they need support to me are 1) The date from when Fraulein came to be unused, and 2) The claim that it is now common to do so. The Duden quote already verifies the last sentence, and the first sentence passes the "common sense" test in not needing a citation. #2 is close to supported by Duden, although it (in the translation) seems to more say that using Fraulein is inappropriate, not that it isn't actually used in practice. However, other cites may cover that. I have no problem with you bringing that over to the article page, although obviously others should comment. Oh, if you do, you should keep in both the literal English translation as well as the German pronunciation link (that's in the current first line of the article). Others, though, are of course welcome to disagree. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I just removed again the claim in the article (somehow missed it before) that said something like "all educated Germans know it's okay to use), since that was neither supported by the quotation, nor even likely to be true. As always, verification is needed for such a controversial claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the article as agreed upon. Since your last edit, the IP had changed the quotes from the references to change their statements. I also inserted the new reference I presented some time ago on this page. I somehow got the ref syntax wrong, though. Could you by any chance fix that? --Kobraton (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

All fixed! Thanks for the reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please have another look? When you fixed the citation, the IP had already reverted the article. The IP has changed the wording of one citation, removed the quote of another, removed the translation of another and completely removed my newly added reference. My version of the article was quite a bit different from the way it is now. Could you please take a look at that? I think I could use some help with that. Thanks. --Kobraton (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for noticing; sorry, I'm not at my normal computer, and not editing so often, so I didn't look too closely at the history. I currently agree that Kobraton's wording is far clearer and better cited than the version the IP reverted to. It's much clearer to have separate lines with separate citations, rather than having a single line with 3 references. Furthermore, if we're including a quotation in German, we definitely need a translation; just the translation, though is fine. I'm not saying that it can't be further improved, just that the version Kobraton put is much better than what was there before. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not leave vandalism template warnings on my talk page. Just because I am attempting to improve the quality and accuracy of this article by adding appropriate reference. I understand you like the nice politically correct, liberal version of the article that exists now, but it's simply NOT TRUE. Are you even German? Why do you have such a strong opinion on this article? Agenda anyone? If you are some sort of feminist, guess what: I am a GERMAN WOMAN and I AM NOT OFFENDED BY Fräulein and it's not "DISCRIMINATORY". Why don't you look up the word "discriminatory" so you will know what it means next time you decided to toss it around? 24.128.247.159 (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So much for strong opinions. Yes, I'm German, and I'm positive that the version I wrote correctly describes the facts. But what I believe is not important. The point is that what I believe to be true can be proven with references. Your opinion obviously differs from mine. But you don't have any references that support your claims. So unless you can come up with some references that back up your opinion, stop changing the article. I'm going to revert your recent changes. --Kobraton (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't leave a vandalism warning--I left a warning that you are making POV edits and engaging in an edit war. I never accused you of vandalism, as far as I know. Furthermore, you cannot ask that such warnings not be left on your talk page, as you are in violation of policies by editing with a particular opinion about what is "true," and aren't providing any sources for those opinions. Furthermore, some of your edits are flat out wrong, like leaving a long untranslated quote in the reference. As for the rest of your questions, no I'm not German, and no, I can't read German. I have literally no opinion whatsoever about what to call women in German. I am, however, a regular editor of Wikipedia, and I have a very strong "opinion" about people following our policies. We require, without exception, that articles be both neutral and well sourced. Please try to hear this again: if you can provide sources--not your own opinion, but legitimate sources (see WP:RS for info about what a reliable source is in Wikipedia's terms), then you are more than welcome to add information that corresponds to that source/opinion. For example, if you can find a newspaper article (note: not an opinion article, but a factual article), stating that the term is still in common use, or discussing a survey that said that many women like/prefer/don't mind the use of the term, then, great, let's add that and include it. Until you can produce such sources, you are editing against policy. For example, you keep changing "Duden", which is, as far as I know, a widely respected German dictionary, and assigning the claim to "feminists." This is flat out falsification. Furthermore, you're adding unsourced POV claims. You must stop. All you need to do is find sources that state claims similar to what you think is correct about the term, and we'll add them. It is very common for Wikipedia articles to state multiple different opinions, and I think it would be great if this article did, too. But you have to have sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have lived in Austria for the last 20 years, so I think I have the right to chime in. "Frau" would be Mrs. in English and "Fraulein" would be Miss. The former is used for married women and the latter is used for single women. It's funny how "Germans" claim that their usage applies to all German speakers, including Austrians and the Swiss. It sort of reminds me of the Anschluss. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

German woman? Lived in Austria for 20 years and complaining about Germans? Come on. Even if that was true, it wouldn't matter. Like Qwyrxian said, produce some evidence and we can discuss about inserting it into the article. --Kobraton (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So now you just reverted the recent changes we agreed on here. We have worked on it and found new references, and you can't just revert that because you don't like the outcome. Let's see what Qwyrxian has to say, but I think we should return to the new version. --Kobraton (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous version persisted for over a year. There was no need to change it in the first place. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not necessarily a reason to keep it. In any event, the version that you reverted to today is better than the one you reverted to yesterday, as it at least has all of the necessary info and citations (save one, which I marked). I think the problem is that some of the versions you (24...) were going to were intermediate versions that weren't properly formatted, and that contained unsourced opinion (I remember at some point someone had written something like "Educated Germans know the term is acceptable," which is clearly not an acceptable sentence in a WP article). In any event, could we all agree to stop reverting and discuss this here? I don't have time at the moment, but I think the best thing to do is to start a new section to discuss specific changes to the article--specific lines that people think need to change or need to say, specific references to add/remove, etc. But any more reverting on the article and we're going to have to fully protect it to stop the edit warring. 98.176.17.189 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

24...: It was actually you who started [8] changing the version you restored now in the first place. And by changing I mean deleting most of it. So now live with the result of the discussion - that is the new version [9]. @98...: If you have a look at this section, you can see that we have been doing just that - discussing the changes. This resulted in the new version. It may not be perfect and can be further improved - but not by just reverting to a version that is more than a month old. I'd like to hear what Qwyrxian has to say about this, but I think the new version has to be restored. --Kobraton (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the controversy. Frau is used for married women and Fraulein is used for single women. Nevertheless, let's leave the version that had persisted for over 1 year. I really think there is a need for finality here. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's simply unacceptable. Wikipedia does not keep things just because they are--by definition, wikipedia articles are always evolving; no one ever gets to say "Yup, we're done." Second, your statement about how it is used flatly contradicts several high quality sources we have--the largest German dictionary, as well as the German government. In any event, it is, as always, your personal opinion, which is irrelevant to the article. @Kobraton: can you make a new section here detailing what you think should change? I think, at a minimum, we need to include the statement you got from the German government, as that's a pretty authoritative source. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kobraton will not discuss the changes here. Instead of incorporating the new sources into the article and attemping to reach an agreement, he entirely re-wrote the article, which was not necessary. It seems that the article as it stands now only discusses Germany. In case he's not aware of it, there are other German speaking countries as well. The Anschluss did not work and you guys lost. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The Anschluss may not have worked, Godwin's law surely does. And as you have probably noticed, I did discuss the changes. There was more than a week between my proposal of new text (on this page, in this section) and its implementation into the article. Furthermore, I did incorporate a new source. Quite contrary to you. Aside from bold statements, you haven't really contributed anything to the article. By the way - falsifying existing references ([10], [11]) doesn't count as finding new ones. I would really appreciate if you could leave this article alone for a while. You're not helping! --Kobraton (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I would never use Fräulein to refer to a married woman. That would be completely inappropriate. Maybe we could add that to the article. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Full protection

I have requested full protection for the article. 24..., you claim to be going back to an older, stable, version, but you're not--you keep adding POV claims that directly contradict the sources we have. I have requested full protection so that the edit warring will stop. I do not know which version will be temporarily held in place (assuming the protection is granted), and I don't really care. But we have to discuss this here, rather than having the article itself change 5 times a day. We have to make the article match reliable sources, period—no personal opinions, no original research. Once the protection is up, then we can start actually discussing things. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so how does this work now? Everyone says what should be changed in his opinion? Sigh. Well, let's go... #1 I request that the reference No.1 be restored, one IP has just deleted a sentence (for the 100th time). You can disagree with the source, but falsifying it won't help anyone. #2 Nowadays it is common to adress all women as "Frau". (Strike married). Come on, we've had that. We have 4 good references that completely agree in this point. #3 I think "has largely dropped out of use" better describes the facts than the very vage "not always used quite as often". And it is nicely supported by ref no.1. #4 "Some" (who?) felt it to be inappropriate. The previous sentences was better. #5 Frau used to be the honorific for married women only. Same as #2. #6 In ref. no1 there are two direct quotes from declarations from German Ministers of the Interior, one from 1955 and one from 1972. They deal with the way women are to be adressed in association with public authorities. In 1955 they are granted the right to chose to be called "Frau" even if unmarried. In 1972 the then Minister decrees that all women are to be adressed as Frau when dealing with the public authorities, married or not. --Kobraton (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. This is quite tiring. Amazing to see how much time it cost just to correct the last IP revision. --Kobraton (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You cannot say the term is never used. Some women prefer the usage and not all women are feminists. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No one said it is "never used". Stop putting words into our mouths. Your second sentence is irrelevant, as it is your personal opinion/observation. Please find sources, or find a website other than WP that doesn't require sources where you can post your own personal opinion. However, since I know it can be difficult to find sources, I would be comfortable with a sentence which read something like "Some speakers of German, however, consider the term to still be appropriate for adult unmarried women" (followed by a Citation Needed template). I could even live with that being in the article for a month or so while you sought citations to support that claim, and would even defend it staying in for that long against others who would seek to remove it as unsourced POV statements. Would that satisfy you for now?

As for the article: I concur w/Kobraton that "not always used quite as often" is just bad writing; it's also wrong per the RS, since it means that it's just used a little less, while the sources say it is rarely used. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am actually comfortable with the version of the article that is there now. Or I would suggest reverting to the version that existed before this conflict started (say October or November.) Nevertheless, the page protection prevents us from doing that until a consensus is reached. I love how User:Kobraton stated that he/she would have preferred semi-protection. That way he/she could edit the page and I could not. Interesting. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

How surprising. It seems the discussion has ceased ever since the page was protected. It looks like despite statements about wanting to discuss things on this talk page, some are more interested in having their version of the article than discussing changes here. No worries. I am sure the strong opinions will resume once the protection is lifted. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies--I'm still on on/off wikibreak, and sometimes when I come on I have the mental capacity to look through my watchlist for simple vandalisms, but not for detailed issues like this one.

Here's what I see has to change:

• "Fräulein is the diminutive form of Frau, which is the honorific for married women only.": Flatly contradicted by several of our citations. This could say "which previously was an honorific used only for married women."
• "Since the 1970s, Fräulein is not always used quite as often as it once was." Extremely awkward, and contradicts source 1 (which says it has mostly disappeared from everyday speech. Again, absent other sources, that should say "Since the 1970s the use of Fräulein has significantly decreased." or "Since the 1970s, the use of Fräulein has dwindled and now is rarely used for adult women."
• "As it indicated the marital status, some felt to be inappropriate.[1]" Not what the source says, and, in any event, who is "some"? This sentence should just be eliminated entirely.
• "Nowadays, it is common to adress all married women as Frau" Contradicted by sources; it should say "it is common to address all adult women, regardless of marital status, as Frau."

As always, should sources be produced which provide a countervailing opinion (that says that there is evidence that the Fraulein is still used) then we should make the changes I recommend above, and then add more sentences that say something like, "Others, however, argue that Fraulein is an acceptable term...Furthermore, one study, by Person X, indicates that approximately y% of German speakers still say..." or whatever it is those sources say. So, as always, 24..., the burden is on you. The article must match the sources; editing it in ways that make it not match the sources is not allowed, and will lead to me requesting that you be blocked from editing (either just this article or in general, until such time as you can demonstrate that you can follow WP:NPOV and WP:OR). The burden is on you to provide us other sources. As always, I am very much in favor of including multiple well-sourced points of view. As always, I have no "dog in this race" except that I strongly believe that we need to attempt to make all articles meet WP's policies and guidelines. And one of those (see WP:V) is that whatever you or I or anyone else thinks is "true" is irrelevant, because the standard we are after is not truth, but verifiability. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No.1: Agreed. No.2: I prefer the second sentence, as it's closer to what the source says. No.3: That sentence used to be "As it indicated the marital status, it was felt to be discriminatory." (which is quite close to what the source says in its summary.) Do you think that's too strong? No.4: Agreed.
Do you think the "Minister rules" I described in #6 above are relevant enough and should be put into the article? --Kobraton (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

For #2, I prefer the first sentence. It doesn't surprise me that the other user would prefer the second one. You sugguest elimination of the sentence in #3; however what User:Kobraton had put in its place was something along the lines of "it was thought to be discriminatory." Isn't that the same kind of issue? WHO though it was discriminatory? For #4, it is acceptable to address all married women as Frau, so that can stay. However, there are certain elderly or socially conservative speakers who would consider it inappropriate to address unmarried women as Frau. I don't think this article should make these sweeping, generalized statements. "All women are addressed as Frau"? You mean every, every woman in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. That's quite a statement, but I doubt if it's true.

Finally, please stop saying you will block me if I don't agree with your changes. First of all, you are not an administrator, so you cannot do that anyway. Second, I find the whole thing very threatening, and it makes me very uneasy and uncomfortable. If I engage in vandalism or something, then you can report me, but until then, I think we can just stick to discussing changes to the article. We can disagree on content, etc, but I have never made any threats or personal attacks on you, so I would appreciate the same courtesy. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside View I've been following this discussion since the article was protected. I have a couple of suggestions regarding the use of the sources in the version preferred by Qwyrxian and Kobraton. The reference to Okamura Saburo (2006) says that the Minister of the Interior banned it from official use in 1972, and since then it has largely disappeared from everyday speech as well. I think that this reference is talking solely about usage in Germany, so the source could be used to say something like "Since the 1970s the use of Fräulein in Germany has significantly decreased." This might help to start to address the problem that the tag on the page points out, that the article does not represent a worldview. The Exeter University source cautions against using the term Fräulein, but can not be used to support the sentence "Nowadays, it is common to address all grown women as Frau regardless of marital status". Instead you could try something like "Nowadays, style guides recommend addressing all adult women as Frau regardless of marital status" (This sentence could also be backed by the Oxford dictionary source). By being clear about what each source is specifically referring to you can avoid making generalised sweeping statements that can be challenged, you also leave it open for a sourced contrary opinion/example to be added.—Jeremy (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Minister of the Interior thing definetly is about Germany only. The other three sources refer to the German language, so in terms of usage of "Fräulein" that also includes other German-speaking countries. You say that the sentence "...it is common to address all grown women..." can't be supported by the Exeter University source. What about the Duden source? It says "Fräulein" is outdated, a grown woman should always be addressed as Frau regardless of age and marital status, and Fräulein is inappropriate unless the woman wants to be addressed that way. I think that is quite a clear statement and in my opinion is enough to prove that it is "common". What do you think?
By the way, the IP has changed my last comment. Do I have to take that? At what point does that become vandalism? --Kobraton (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring or changing other people's talk page comments is generally strongly discouraged. The University of Exeter source is part of a language course; as is does not cite any surveys or other sources it must be taken to simply be expressing the opinion of the teacher of that course. That doesn't mean that you can't cite it, but you must be careful not to extrapolate from it, especially to the use of the words like 'common', which could be interpreted as weasel words. Likewise the Duden source, which as far as I can make out is a letter/article from an online newsletter, so again it is the opinion of the writer. The Duden source would add weight to a version of the sentence that I proposed; perhaps something like "modern usage guidelines recommend addressing all adult women as Frau regardless of marital status." I think that the sentence "Nowadays, it is common to address all grown women as Frau regardless of marital status" should only be used if a source can be found that provides some form of proof that this is the case, preferably some sort of survey. Writing opinions as opinions that are directly attributed to their source without further generalisation is a good way to avoid the kind of edit wars that have been going on in this article.—Jeremy (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@JeremyA: I really like your suggestions. The sentence "Nowadays, style guides recommend addressing all adult women as Frau regardless of marital status" would be perfect. I would also just like to add that women's preferences should be honored (as is stated in the Duden reference.) Also, "the term has decreased in usage" would be much better than saying "the term has been dropped" or "never used". This is acceptable language for an encyclopedia article and is supported by the references. My main problem was with the sweeping generalizations- "all women are addressed as Frau" (really, all women; every single one); "Fräulein is considered discriminatory" (really, by whom and against whom is the discrimination occurring). If the other editors are onboard with this, it may be the start of some sort of consensus.

@Kobraton: I apologize for removing that little bit of your last comment. It was done by accident, and no offense was intended. However, if we are going to come to a consensus on this article, I am asking you to start treating me with the same respect you would treat any editor. (Stop referring to me as "The IP"; stop leaving messages on other's user pages saying I should be blocked because I disagree with your version of the article.)

@Qwyrxian: I am willing to work with you to develop a consensus on this article, but please stop making the idle threats (saying your going to block me from editing ALL Wikipedia articles because I have expressed disagreement with you.) I have always been civil with you, and I am just asking for the same respect that any editor would be given. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I like the track Jeremy is taking here, on both points. First, I agree that we should be clear that the "ban" from the Minister applies only to Germany. Second, I agree that we need to distinguish between when the statements describe actual usage (like I think Duden does), and when statements represent the opinions of the guide/writer. I also agree we should not make our claims any stronger than the actual statements in the references. In this way, I agree with 24.128.247.159, in that we should not state that all women are called Frau (although we may state, for example, that the German government stated that all women should be called Frau). Similarly, we may only state that it is discriminatory if we can attribute that to a specific person/group. I thought one of the sources used that term? Apologies, I don't have time to look at the moment, but I just wanted to give a few thoughts and a note of personal happiness, as I feel like I see more movement towards consensus here. If I have time, I'll look more closely at those sources, but it could be a day or two days or even 5 days til I have time to do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

I tried out what I think may be a compromise wording. Some details:

• I specifically said that it is dictionaries and style guides that express the preference for not using Fraulein.
• I ascribed the specific part about "only when requested" to Duden, since that's who the quote is from.
• I clarified first two sentences to show that the traditional use (Fraulein for unmarried, Frau for married) is the previous standard way.
• I clarified that the "banning" was only in Germany.

I fully accept that this may need more work, but wanted to take a try at a change. Does this wording have consensus? What do others think should be changed? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, can I take off the Germany-bias tag? The article doesn't really need a "worldwide" viewpoint--it just needs the viewpoint of a few more countries with a large number of German speakers. Furthermore, I don't think it's even possible to get a reference that says "In Austria, Fraulein is...." I don't see the logic in leaving a tag that is actually impossible to fulfill. Plus, since my new wording localized the "banning" to Germany, it seems to have clarified any confusion there. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Pretty much what Jeremy suggested as well. I think the article now contains the most important information, so I'm reasonably content with it right now. I also second your request to take off the globalize-tag. It is now in the article that of course, the German Minister of the Interior banned the word only in Germany. And the rest of the quotes refer to the German language, not Germany, so there should be no bias left IMO. By the way, thanks for implementing the changes! --Kobraton (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased

It seems this article is quite biased, and is written from the perspective that the term is never used, and should never be used. This is quite concerning, as Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and neutral. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Again? Seriously? Just like last time, if you can provide reliable sources that discuss the term (not use it, but actually discuss it's current use), then please feel free to add them. Wikipedia is, in fact, objective and neutral (or, at least, we try to be); the way we do that is by stating what reliable sources have said, not what individual people believe to be "true". Currently, the reliable sources we have state that the term is not supposed to be used, per the German government and a number of style guidelines. This isn't stating it's never used--merely that official recommendation from publishers and the German government is not to use it. This is no different than any other outdated term--sure, some people may still use it, but that doesn't change the fact that sources say it should not be used. So, in closing--reliable sources, please. If you have them, and they are current, either post them here or add them into the article directly. If you don't, there's really nothing that can be done. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to remove tags concerning the neutrality of the article until a consensus is reached. Unless your point of view, along with that of another editor who has been silent for 7 months counts as consensus, the tag should remain. By the way, I don't think the German government every "banned" the term. I doubt a democratic, western government would prohibit its citizens from using a courtesy title. Seems more like wishful thinking to me. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was reached six months ago. You're correct that tags can't be arbitrarily removed, but no edit ever claiming a lack of neutrality has ever been able to provide a single reliable source verifying that what is currently in the article is anything other than neutral. If someone were to provide a reliable source verifying that the usage of the term is disputed, then it would be reasonable to claim it's non-neutral. But you can't just put a tag on and say "It's not neutral because I say so." Note that the tag itself says, "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." I have never seen any discussion other than personal opinions that establish any hint of non-neutrality. Regarding the German government, well, I'm not the one who said it--our reliable source did. If you can find an alternative source, then let me know.

So, if you want to re-add the tag, I won't remove it immediately. But I'll expect some sort of clear movement here on talk with sources that shows why this is non-neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It it in use and all the blanking of the fact does not alter reality

Regardless of a "ban". It is still used in common speech. How do I know? I have been to Germany and Austria many times and I have heard it come from the mouth of Germans with my own ears many times. What would they do? Arrest folk for saying it? Obviously not. How do you expect anyone to find a source for how often a common word is used? How likely is it that anyone can find a newspaper or book that states that Fraulein is still in use? Not very...Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As i mentioned on my talk page, there should definitely be sources. Note, for example, how Duden explicitly says that the term is rarely used, and only when specifically requested. That's a major claim; if someone disputed it, it would have been objected to, in an academic journal, a newspaper article, a book on socio-linguistics, etc. That would, in fact, be the right place to look: socio-linguists study this sort of thing all the time. Note that the article doesn't say it is unused, only that it is used much less often than before and is explicitly deprecated in major style guides and in government policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous!

Alright, I just read this whole talk page and all I can say is this: WTF? Thank you, that's all. P.S.: And yes, I know this comment didn't help at all but seriously, WTF? 217.93.240.80 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's still in use in some way, shape or form. However, it seems than there is one editor in particular who will not allow anything into the article that contradicts the opinion that the term is "offensive" to women. If it was so cut and dry, I wonder why there has been 6 years of controversy about this subject on this talk page. 24.147.206.129 (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, all of you misunderstand me. What I will not allow is violation of Wikipedia policy. WP:V says you need to verify claims that may be challenged. Since we have multiple sources saying the term is no longer in general use, or "should not" be used, to claim that it is still in common use requires a source. Not "I live in Germany and I hear people use it", but a high quality source, like a newspaper article, academic journal, etc. that discusses current usage. It really is that simple. Wikipedia is not a place to add your own opinions about what is or should be true. It is a place for information verified by reliable sources. There are thousands of places on the internet where you can go post your own personal opinions about what is or is not true; Wikipedia is not one of them. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So common sense is not welcome then. Despite the high improbability of there being a source as it is a non-issue to 99.999% of the people who would be likely to write something that conforms to WP:V. Six years of reverting and removing any edit that mildly points out that it is still in use baffles me. This is pedantry. It would be different is this was a biography but it's just a word that IS still in use. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...what if I wrote, "In the past decade, the word Fraulein has recently come to be used as a term for middle-aged men, as a type of ironic twist on the words original meaning." And then what if I told you, "No, really, it's true, it's common sense, everyone knows that?" How could we ever solve the argument, even though I'd be lying? In other words, why should we believe your story is any more likely than mine? That's the whole point behind Wikipedia: we aren't about common sense, people's beliefs, or trying to decide what is "true" or "good"--we're about writing what is verified in reliable sources. And while you may think I'm being ridiculous, let me tell you that I deal with editors on other subjects who actually say, "It's common knowledge that my clan is descended from kings and warriors who themselves are originally descended from the Moon herself. Everyone knows this, and it's not at all disputed and anyone who says otherwise is just jealous of us." Wikipedia needs rules to determine what is of encyclopedic value, and one of those rules is that the information must be verifiable in sources.

Finally, if you are right, and the word is regularly used, then you're wrong that there won't be sources, because that is exactly the sort of thing that socio-linguists and sociologists love to study. And its exactly the kind of thing that newspapers like to write about (e.g., "While the word was officially outlawed, a recent survey found..."). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one additional note: I've only been editing this article for about a year, so if this has been going on for 6 years, then there must be others who agree with me. Also, if anyone thinks I'm wrong, Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process that you can follow if you want to seek the input of other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just want to chime in here to show that Qwyrxian ist not the only one here on this side of the discussion. By the way, I'm German and I therefore know that the article is correct in stating that the word isn't used that often any more. Now I know that this assertion is worthless. I just wanted to show that there are people on either side who believe they're right, and we should now return to checking the facts we have. Funny side note: German WP has hardly any controversity about this topic... --Kobraton (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I just made a small change to the lead, to from "previously used" to "previously in common use". I can see that the former reading may imply it's never used, which would be incorrect, while this new version is intended to say "People used to use this all the time", followed by the later info that it's no longer recommended. Does that in any way address people's concerns? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical gender and Fräulein

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi is a story by swiss author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Spyri written in 1881. The second part of the Heidi series is titled https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_(Roman)#Heidi_kann_brauchen.2C_was_es_gelernt_hat 'Heidi kann brauchen was es gelernt hat'. Note the use of the grammical neutral pronoun 'es' instead of the female 'sie' (Die Frau (f) vs. Das Fräulein (n)). As an unmarried woman Heidi is being referred to mentally as a Fräulein by Spyri, and so Spyri used 'es' instead of 'sie' in the title.

This is completely unusual in modern use of german, and a native german speaker must stumble when they are reading this title today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.240.225 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice to just keep reverting other's edits without discussing on the talk page. It seems from reading the lengthy page above that there is one editor who will not allow anything to be added into the article that even remotely suggests that the word is still used. The term is "banned"? So if I go to Germany today, I could be arrested for using it? LOL 212.128.138.130 (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are one editor who constantly reverts to assert your own point of view. No where in the article does it say that the use of the word is banned, or that you could be arrested for using it.—Jeremy (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? Just read the article. "Fräulein has come to be used less often, and was banned" 212.128.138.130 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice use of selective quoting. Of course—as you well know—the full context of your quote is "was banned from official use in West Germany in 1972". And I'm sure that you don't really need me to explain to you that this means that is was no longer used in official West German government documents/communications after that date. The sentence is sourced to a reliable source, so please now stop your vandalism.—Jeremy (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Revival ?

"Despite the less common everyday use nowadays, Fräulein has seen a revival in recent years as a vogue term, especially in popular culture. In particular, the term is used as a reference to German girls perceived as beautiful and for popular German models."

I can't judge about the first sentence, but the second part is imho not true. I have read the three references, and think the author of this sentence might be misleaded by those. The three articles contain material about German models, though that is not why the term "Fräulein" was used. In the second and third reference the point of the term is someone behaving or being down-to-earth or well-behaved (-> "Vorzeige-Fräulein"), as one could connect it with "the old times" and therefore the use of the outdated term. The first reference uses this term imho to reflect international success. This is why the incorrect plural with the s-ending and another term in "the international language" is used ("Made in Germany"). "Fräulein" is the best translation of "Miss", concerning the meaning. Though at the moment "Fräulein" appears to be used less often than "Miss" (I am a Native German and can only judge this based on my knowledge). Therefore it happens that especially in American media and films with German content the term appears more frequent than actually used in the German language. In the given context of this article, this leads to a connotation of internationality even in the German language.

As I am aware of this recent effect I am totally happy with the first sentence. Though, bold as I am, I took the liberty to delete the second sentence. A replacement containing information about the points mentioned above might be appropriate, but I could not come up with references for it. I am also ready for a discussion about this with other German Natives. --Murata (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: The term is also used when reprehending small girls in a not-so-serious way ("Mein liebes Fräulein ...")

Sources

There are in fact some sources on this issue:

• Bussman, Hadumod & Hellinger, Marlis 2003, "Engendering Female Visibility in German," in Hellinger, Marlis (ed.) Gender Across Languages: The linguistic representation of women ..., Volume 3, Hadumod (viewable at least in part on Google Books)
• Hellinger, Marlis, 1980, "Zum Gebrauch weiblicher Berufsbezeichnungen im Deutschen..." Linguistische Berichte 69: 37~58.

[Other works by Hellinger might also touch on this issue.]

• Naeve-Bucher, Ursula, 2001, "Schönes Fräulein darf ich's wagen, Ihnen Arm und Geleite anzutragen?: zu Annäherung, Werbung, Versuchung und Verführung in der schwedischen und deutschen Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts. Stockholm dissertation; see diva-portal.org [historical perspective]
• Vandergriff, Ilona, 2008 "Authentic Models and Usage Norms? Gender Marking in First-Year Textbooks," Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German

41(2): 144~150 (available online)

• Cramer, a. Q., 1976, "Frau or Fraulein: How to Address a Woman in German.," Unterrichtspraxis, 1976 - ERIC (Discusses the then-current changes)
• Bayley, Susan M., 2014, "The English Miss, German Fräulein and French Mademoiselle: foreign governesses and national stereotyping in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Europe,"History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society 43(2): 160~186 (Historical)
• Zinggeler, Margrit, 2013, "Understanding and Teaching Variations of Every-Day Business Language and Behavior in German-Speaking Countries," Global Advances in Business Communication, 2(1): Article 4.

Available at: http://commons.emich.edu/gabc/vol2/iss1/4

• Christen, Helen & Elmiger, Daniel, 2015, "Gender in Swiss German," in Gender Across Languages, Volume 4 edited by Marlis Hellinger, Heiko Motschenbacher [at least partially viewable via Google Books]
• Deutsch_als_Sprache_der_Geistes_Wissenschaften.pdf , p. 25, http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/files/31792/Deutsch_als_Sprache_d

+ While the discussion and disagreements on the this page have focused on the use of the word in German, its use and cultural significance in English should not be ignored, e.g., http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmh/summary/v073/73.1.wert.html and A Foreign Affair directed by Billy Wilder, and: Hallo Fräulein! directed by Rudolf Jugert, and: The Big Lift directed by George Seaton (review)U Bach - Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and …, 2013 - muse.jhu.edu, andGerman Paradise Mallorca: A Funny Telling (Illustrated with Photos) M Von-Muenchen - 2004 - books.google.com and German English Words: A Popular Dictionary of German Words Used in English RD Knapp - 2005 - books.google.com Kdammers (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• A source the German Wik cites but that doesn't come up there is 83０．Alsich1969anfing,alsausländischerStudentanderUniversitätMünchenzustudieren,gabesinderMensaeinenbesonderenRaum,indemGästevonKellnerinnenbedientwurden.DieseKellnerinnenwarenmeistensältereFrauen,mankönntesagen,siestandenmeistkurzvorderRente.DieKellnerinnenwurdentrotzdemallemit„Fräulein“angeredet.（MännlicheStudentennanntensiesogarmitunterscherzhaft„Oma“.）DerMensa-Raum,indemmanbedientwurde,existiertschonlangenichtmehr.DamitauchnichtdieKellnerinnenderMensa.UndauchdieAnrede„Fräulein“fürKellnerinnenhörtmaninRestaurantsoderCafésheutekaumnoch.ImJahr1976kamichzumzweitenMalnachDeutschland,diesmalnachMannheim.Dastaunteich,dassdiejungenStudentinnenjetztnichtmehrmit„Fräulein“angeredetwurdenwiefrüher,sonderngrundsätzlichmit„Frau“.AlleoffiziellenBescheide,welchedieMitbewohnerinnenmeinesStudentenheimsbekamen,warenmit„Frau...“adressiert.Ichmusstefeststellen,dassmanjunge,unverheirateteFrauennichtmehrohneBedenkenmit„Fräulein“bezeichnendarf,sondernnurmit„Frau“.AlsowarichauchZeugeeineskleinenSprachwandels,nämlichdesSchwundsdes„Fräulein“unddessenteilweiseErsetzungdurch„Frau“.EinpassenderNachfolgerfürdas„Fräulein“alsAnredefürKellnerinnenscheintallerdingsnoch● Okamura, Saburo "Das Fräulein ist tot! Es lebe das Fräulein !－Fräulein im Archiv der Süddeutschen Zeitung （1994-2005）" https://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/11342 /1/11S.Okamura.pdf Kdammers (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And here is another source: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Fr%C3%A4ulein&year_start=1800&year_end=2015&corpus=20&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CFr%C3%A4ulein%3B%2Cc0

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fräulein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815072237/http://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/11342/1/11S.Okamura.pdf to http://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/11342/1/11S.Okamura.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fräulein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012192646/http://www.duden.de/deutsche_sprache/newsletter/archiv.php?id=52 to http://www.duden.de/deutsche_sprache/newsletter/archiv.php?id=52

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)