Talk:Fräulein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

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.


[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/%C3%A4/Talk%7EFr%C3%A4ulein_be75.html"