Talk:Fräulein

message: 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)
thread_title: 2005 Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is the word "[[Fräulein]]" still being used? 

message: ::  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Latest Revision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  And again... 

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, I think I finally put together the evidence to conclusively prove that ReadyFreddie is the same user as Piononno: .  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)
thread_title:  November 2007 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: In a bizarre coincidence, I made the same point about people who serve food versus accountants above: .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Of course, how silly of me.  Happy New Year! Darkspots (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fräulein

message: "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)
thread_title:  Translation of the Duden reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What popups? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes to this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opinionated Changes from IP since November 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  controversy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Compromise?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: It it in use and all the blanking of the fact does not alter reality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grammatical gender and Fräulein 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Revival ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified