Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich

Content dispute

The main difference between the two versions ([1] and [2]) appears to be these:

• whether to note that Sarah-Lee Heinrich wrote the tweets as a teenager
• whether to quote one of the tweets, in which she called Germany a "disgustingly white majority", or to passively describe the tweets ("which were described as discriminatory and filled with violence were discussed publicly")

I will note that as a native English speaker I find the phrasing "which were described as discriminatory and filled with violence were discussed publicly" circuitous to the point of being confusing. Mackensen (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia we decided almost unanimous to only passively describe the tweets. It made big headlines in Germany, thanks to tabloid newspapers who tried to scandalize this. My formulation was an attempt to translate what we came up with in German Wikipedia. Here you can find more about this topic: [3]. Maybe one could propose a different formulation.

"disgustingly white majority" is another quote from her teenage years (not a tweet but from a YouTube video), and she clearly doesn't hold this position anymore. If one watches her interviews now it is very clear that this is not a position she holds anymore and she apologized for using the word "disgustingly" multiple times. But still the far-right is creating twitter posts and memes where they try to present this as a recent viewpoint of her. --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Following Deutsche Welle, one could describe it as "offensive tweets", maybe better understandable.

After her election, offensive tweets she wrote at the age of 13 and 14 and deleted since then were discussed publicly, after right-wing social media accounts and the tabloid newspaper BILD reported about them initially. Heinrich apologized for those Tweets and called them "wrong and hurtful". After vehement attacks like death and rape threats, she temporarily withdrew from the public for a few days.

--TheRandomIP (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sarah-Lee Heinrich's "disgustingly white majority" was not one of the discussed teenager tweets, but another incident.

As the welt.de (major German newspaper) writes: "Die aktuelle Vorsitzende der Grünen Jugend war volljährig, als sie von einer „ekligen weißen Mehrheitsgesellschaft“ sprach."

(Translation: "The chairwoman of the Green Youth was an adult, when she talked about a 'disgustingly white majority society'").

--https://www.welt.de/politik/bundestagswahl/plus234372910/Parteinachwuchs-Eklige-weisse-Mehrheitsgesellschaft-Die-Gruene-Jugend-und-ihr-Deutschlandbild.html

So if the discussion in the German article talk page was focused on her teenager tweets, not that grossly racist comment, then how is the "let's not mention the Tweets she made as a kid" relevant to the inclusion of the comment that she made as an adult?

We would include reported grossly racist comments by other politicians, so why does Sarah-Lee Heinrich get protection?

On another note: I'm not sure why TheRandomIP focuses on "we decided almost unanimous to only passively describe the tweets", when the tweets were made as a teenager and the "disgustingly white majority" was made as an adult. TheRandomIP was notified about this distinction in the German article's talk page, but they keep continuing to misunderstand the situation. Also I'm not sure why TheRandomIP tries to dismiss the reporting about it as "tabloid newspaper" (even though I referenced welt.de) and singles out "far-right" criticism. The far-right might have an issue with it, because it's racism against whites, but in addition to that it's still racism, which is opposed by centrist, left-leaning and traditional leftists on principle.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a ministry of truth that memory holes offenses by racist politicians, if they are a high-ranking member of the correct party. --2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:64B0:DE51:9847:D940 (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

But you know that WELT is owned by the same company as the tabloid newspaper BILD and that WELT is nothing more than a "tabloid newspaper for rich kids"?

That said, the WELT is only drawing an incomplete picture of the situation. Sarah-Lee Heinrich already explained what she meant by that, here in the interview [4], that she used the wrong formulation and that she apologized for the feelings she hurt. And there are a lot of newspapers defending Heinrich, like here [5], even the political opponents (the conservative FDP) defended her, if you saw Markus Lanz recently. Only the far-right is still pushing this narrative about "racism against white people". No leftist in the right mind, after seeing her interviews, would oppose her.

And so if you find that single quote relevant, you would need to write a lengthy segment about her response and the response by other newspapers. Just for a single quote. But I don't think something like this is useful for the article, this is recentism / newsticker style. So I would say it is not relevant at all to discuss every single quote any politician once said. We should draw a big picture about her position but not mention every single quote. --TheRandomIP (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"every single quote any politician once said"

I find it very relevant. Especially as she is in a position of power and claims to be anti-racist, even though her comments show that she is a very hateful racist.

"WELT is owned by the same company as"

Sounds like you are grasping for straws, just to dismiss and discredit rightful criticism of racist comments.

"Only the far-right is still pushing this narrative about "racism against white people". No leftist in the right mind, after seeing her interviews, would oppose her."

I oppose gross racist remarks, but let me guess this makes me "far-right" in your eyes, because the racist remarks go against white people. As I'm sure you believe yourself to be left, let me remind you that liberal and left means "against racism", not "against racism, except racism against whites".

"And so if you find that single quote relevant, you would need to write a lengthy segment about her response"

We can simply write her racist comment, followed by "she later publicly apologized for that racist statement".

Can you please affirm that you aren't biased/motivated to defend her image (or the image of the Green Party) from rightful criticism?

"We should draw a big picture about her position but not mention every single quote."

I'm fine, if we write that she repeatedly made grossly racist comments against white people and specifically Jews over the years and apologized after it was brought to light.

I'm not fine with simply sweeping it under the rug or even going one step further and pretending as if she was some blameless victim of the "far-right".

Giving the benefit of the doubt to apologies and being forgiving is one thing. Memory-holing facts that damage some politician's reputation is another. The later is highly fascistic.

--2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:CEA:6715:4D7C:6EFC (talk) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

(Note: I have now linked to this talk page from WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN to seek a wider consensus about this topic. A permanent link to the invitation's wording can be found at Special:Diff/1055030578.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"against ... Jews". You are sure you have your facts right and you haven't been fooled by fake news? [6] (translated headline: "Jews and Asians are not people": Alleged post by Sarah-Lee Heinrich is a fake!) ?

I'm trying to get a neutral and balanced article about this person, not a one where she is portrayed by her opponents.

It is really unfair to reduce people to single statements. That's not how you get a neutral and balanced viewpoint. Instead, you need to take more sources into account that consider her political positions as a whole and not just look into single statement. And she was not really in a position of power when she said the statement in question.

And I already explained to you that you need to take the context into account when she said that statement. Just taking those three words out of context is not very helpful either, that is close to fake news, too, especially since she didn't mean it that way. As I said you would need a lengthy paragraph to really explain what she meant by that. (e.g. "disgustingly white majority" is ambiguous, do you attach "disgustingly" to "white" or to "majority"? She clearly was criticizing the dynamics of a majority society, as she later explained, she did not call white people disgusting, although this was how her opponents portrayed it)

It is just not helpful for the overall big picture, because you can find better sources to describe her political positions. --TheRandomIP (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

"I'm trying to get a neutral and balanced article about this person, not a one where she is portrayed by her opponents."

Same here, except I do not want the article about this person that is written and cleared by somebody who could as well be her fans and/or party members.

The public has a right to know what kind of views the elected politicians hold.

After I've watched that part of the video, that you've linked, I'm not even sure I would write "she apologized for the statement". Instead I would write similar to what she said: "She regrets that she formulated her position in a way, which was reported as offensive"

She still seems to hold the racist believes and simply wishes to not have been called out for them. Did you link to a wrong time perhaps?

--2A00:6020:B3B0:5300:CEA:6715:4D7C:6EFC (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't understand how you came to such a conclusion that she holds "racist believes" after watching the scene I linked. I watched it multiple times and didn't find any indication. And I'm saying this as someone who has been critical of anti-white rhetoric as well for example in Robin DiAngelo style of "white guilt" and "diversity trainings". But Sarah-Lee Heinrich is completely different here, for example she says about such concepts [7] "this is an analysis I do not support". Period. To come to such a conclusion like you one must totally dismiss/ignore any racism (against PoC) and then you can call any attempt to fight against racism a "racism against white people". This is the only way one can come to such a conclusion. So I really question what kind of biases you hold; at least it must be very far from political mainstream.

Anyway you need to find credible sources for your allegations; and I am not aware of a single credible source calling Sarah-Lee Heinrich a racist for her recent statements. That is entirely your PoV. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You need a "credible source" to determine whether someone is a racist or not? Would you need that if someone talked about a disgusting black majority? This racism-apologism doesn't make you look enlightened - it makes you look like a racist 2A00:23C4:BA8F:7301:8978:2B0E:FAC0:8326 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove external links

Please remove the external links to social media per WP:NOSOCIAL. In this case, I am concerned it's used for harassment as well. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• User:Shushugah, I don't understand: NSOCIAL read by itself says "no social media", but we're talking about the "official" links, the one the subject presumably controls, and we typically use them as official links. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That's my read as well; they amount to an official site these days. It needs to be read together with WP:ELYES. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I think we should remove one of the links though per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. I'd suggest we remove the Instagram one since Twitter links to Instagram but not vice versa. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Declined for now: There appears to be no consensus for the change; please re-request if this changes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)