Talk:Shola Mos-Shogbamimu

Lacks even basic data

Eg her age and date of birth. What age did she enter university to graduate aged 19? She is apparently a USA qualified lawyer - when did she do that? To whom is she married? Which school did she attend? Nothing on early career. Rustygecko (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rustygecko you'll be lucky 2A00:23C7:BF05:D401:E481:25A1:90BC:23A2 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

She posted her birthday online here: https://twitter.com/SholaMos1/status/1723953368878494097

I can't see any other source for it, apart from IMDb. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Also who are her parents who are wealthy Nigerians? Rustygecko (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Better to ask who her grand father was... just don't mention any money made through things she now complains about... 2A02:C7C:BE8D:AC00:A06D:FD39:66A:3A1A (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also who are her parents who are wealthy Nigerians? Rustygecko (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry

Why, in the day since it was removed, have four separate contributors restored the uncited alleged relationship to Legunsen III each time it has been removed subsequently? It seems suspicious that there are so many people invested in this particular point. If the relationship is factual, provide a reliable published source for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.201.123 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

And another, with no other edits: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/158.62.8.156 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.201.123 (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of ancestry, who is or was Prince Ade Babington-Ashaye? Was 'Prince' a given name or a title of some kind? PortholePete (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. There's just basically no information out there, and no reliable sources EVER cited. Note how, the protection having ended recently, IMMEDIATELY the whole "Prince" thing is added again. This article needs a close eye kept on it/ permanent protection of some level; this lady's current high media profile seems somehow connected with this royalty narrative, to whatever end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.41 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, I wasn't asking a rhetorical question.

I am interested to know whether this person had any connections with a royal family or not. A Google search shows up nothing reliable, but then again not every piece of information is available with a Google search. Has Shola herself ever gone into any detail about her father's lineage? PortholePete (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I know full well that it wasn't rhetorical. Why should it have been? No better answer was, regrettably, within my power, as unfortunately no real information seems to be available in published sources. All that appears in Google Books, for example, is one or two mentions of "king of Ogere, the Ologere of Ogere- His Royal Highness Oba Babington Ashaye", which doesn't let us arrive at any meaningful conclusions aside from i) the article gives Mos-Shogbamimu's maiden name as "Babington-Ashaye" with no citation; ii) it seems rather unlikely (if, however, certainly not impossible) that Mos-Shogbamimu had the surname "Babington-Ashaye" but was entirely UNrelated to the aforementioned king. The problem is, the relationship is totally unclear even IF it's established by reliable sources that that was indeed her surname. She and the king might have shared an ancestor six generations back, without her actually being DESCENDED from the "royal family" itself, after all. (Feel free to ignore the following if you don't want to read it, just my thoughts:)

The fact is that as is usually the case these "royal families" are so obscure as to be more-or-less untraceable. These "kings" are more like Lords of the Manor. Take David Oyelowo, for example, whose grandfather was apparently "king" of "part of Oyo state called Awe"; even Oyelowo, per his article, says "It sounds way more impressive than it actually is. There are so many royal families in Africa"... "royal families are a dime a dozen in Nigeria"... "what we think of as royalty in the UK is very different to royalty in Nigeria: if you were to throw a stone there, you would hit about 30 princes. So it's a bit more like being the Prince of Islington". Basically I have no idea if this woman is "royal" (per the above standards) or not, and it doesn't seem like something one can easily find out. On the one hand, her saying it could be to self-aggrandise, on the other, people who take issue with her stances on race are using it as a "gotcha" when she talks about reparations, i.e. "your ancestors were royal and sold out their own people, so what reparations are you going to pay?" Unless it's firmly established, it seems undesirable to include it in the article either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.41 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Otunba_Fatai_Sowemimo - "He married Kehinde Sowemimo. They have three children. His wife is the grand-daughter of Late Monarch of Ogere-Remo, Oba Alfred Obafuwa Babington-Ashaye. Legunsen III, the Ologere of Ogere. She is the daughter of Prince Olumuyiwa Babington-Ashaye." Once again, no citation is given at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.41 (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Some details of the aforementioned king's family from an interview with his son, who states "My father married 15 wives. And in my family, there are 14 children – seven boys and seven girls." So whatever else factors in, the "royalty" is not really an exclusive status, it seems: http://ireporters247.blogspot.com/2013/08/i-listen-to-country-music-before-going.html

Also one more Google Books result giving an insight into his position- https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Egbe_Omo_Oduduwa/p30uAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Legunsen+III&dq=Legunsen+III&printsec=frontcover - stating "In 1949, the people of Ogere and of Iperu in Ijebu-Remo rose against their traditional rulers. In Ogere, the people were demanding the removal of their Oba, Alfred Babington Obafuwa Asaye, Legunsen III, who was installed in 1945. Most of his chiefs and associate judges of the court, of which he was president, boycotted the court and decided that nobody in Ogere should engage in any act which might make it possible for him to pose or parade himself as their ruler." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.41 (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Full name

This can be cited for her full name- middle name "Morenike" currently not in article- when the protection ends: http://nylawyer.nylj.com/nylawyer/exam/resultMay08/may08ac.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.205.41 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

One-sided

Plenty of people have spoken critically of Shola Mos-Shogbamimu. Why is it only plaudits that are considered worthy of inclusion in the main article? They are hardly NPOV.PortholePete (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources?

It'd be really nice to have some supporting sources for "Her grandfather, Oba Alfred Obafuwa Babington-Ashaye, was the Nigerian monarch of Ogere Remo", which cites her own website. Per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self-published_sources, I'm not sure if the above quoted statement doesn't come under "1. it is not unduly self-serving" or "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". This only occurs to one due to the nature of Mos-Shogbamimu's media profile and generally, it has to be noted, rather self-aggrandising way of presenting herself (i.e. vague but boastful presentations of her academic background, shown in numerous interviews). There must be reliable sources, surely, with pedigrees of what is made out to be a fairly illustrious family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.164.15 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Racist

Why is this being censored? This woman is a racist! She hates white people, and she admitted it multiple times. 45.237.49.5 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If there have been genuine, notable accusations of racism then they'll need to be corroborated by reliable sources. Removed content was not adequately supported by sources. — Czello 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Why no criticism section?

She's a controversial and socially divisive character, and there's doubtless plenty of legitimate criticism of her stance and actions. Shouldn't it be expressed in the article? 86.14.43.73 (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Criticism sections are best avoided but coverage of genuine and notable criticism can be included so long as it is directly supported by reliable sources without any original research or synthesis. What we do not need to do is detail the petulant kvetchings of a bunch of people who just really hate to hear a black woman have opinions. So I have to ask, is there any actual proof that she really is a "controversial and socially divisive character"? All that I have ever heard against her was racially motivated abuse. Maybe the loud-mouthed neo-Nazis are drowning out some more genuine criticisms with their racist nonsense? If so, and if anybody can find it, then that might be possible to include in a proportionate way but what we will never do is turn this article into the hit piece that the racists want it to be. DanielRigal (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. She is divisive, and has quite a bad reputation. I think a "criticism" section is warranted. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think her "bad reputation" is just that her haters like to trash talk her but if you have any genuine WP:RS coverage of non-trivial criticism then that can be added into the article. I don't think it needs a separate section. Our policy (see above) is to avoid those as much as possible. DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Zionist smears - Role as Commentator

There are 4 new paragraphs added to this section about Israel that are smears by Zionists as a character assassination of Dr Shola accusing her of antisemitism. She is one of many prominent Pro-Palestine advocates who are being targeted by Zionists. There are no sources to evidence she is antisemitic or arrested/questioned by Police for such. Surely it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy to platform haters writing defamatory smears on those profiled.

I think these 4 paragraphs should be removed in their entirety as it is accessed by millions worldwide. This isn't the fist time haters of Dr Shola have attempted to malign her on Wikipedia but I note that those contents were removed. These should also be removed. 81.103.166.58 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This should be removed - it's a smear to assassinate Dr Shola's character accusing her of antisemitism. Being anti-genocide and anti-zionist is not antisemitism.

Mos-Shogbamimu has drawn criticism for her remarks about Israel during the country's war against Hamas. In February 2024, the family of the Sage co-founder David Goldman withdrew their support from Newcastle University, following tweets by Mos-Shogbamimu the day before the university awarded her an honorary doctorate for her contributions to race equality and combatting discrimination. His family had launched the David Goldman endowment at the university's Business School in 2001, but ended its links with the institution after they chose not to take action over the tweets, which the family described as antisemitic. Mos-Shogbamimu had written on X: "I condemn the State of Israel with every fibre of my being, What is coming out of Gaza is incomprehensible. Scale of evil Israel is perpetrating against Palestinians is staggering. We must never forgive Israel for this. Just like Nazi Germany, one day justice will be served on it."

The Goldman family's endowment had supported an academic Chair in Innovation and Enterprise, PhD students, 19 visiting professorships, and teaching resources named the David Goldman Teaching Cases. Goldman's son Daniel said: "It has been a very successful relationship for us, obviously focused mainly around the chair itself. In addition to the chair itself there is a series of visiting professors, also under the Goldman name. The university decided to honour Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu with an honorary doctorate of law for her work on racism. The day before the degree ceremony she tweeted out that basically Israel is like Nazi Germany - the first of a series of aggressive and antisemitic tweets, including attacking the Auschwitz Museum and again comparing Israel to Nazi Germany in 'honor' of International Holocaust Memorial Day." He added, "Two months later and after a meeting of the Senate of the university they have decided to take no action...We, the Goldman family, have now decided to withdraw our name from Newcastle University. We are doing so because of the inaction of the university following her repeated and aggressive comments."

Writing on X in October 2024, Mos-Shogbamimu rebuked prime minister Sir Keir Starmer for his commitment to keeping Holocaust education on the school curriculum, saying "Why is it a National Ambition for Nazi Holocaust of White Jewish people to be 'critical part of every British student's identity' but not the Transatlantic Slave trade of Africans, Holocaust/Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing of Black people, Erasure of Black History, Colonisation & ongoing systemic racism, dehumanisation? White Supremacy. Why does Keir Starmer say Holocaust of Jews must never be repeated but arms & supports the Holocaust of Palestinians by Israel? White Supremacy." She described Starmer as a "Zionist Political Prostitute who will trade the lives, liberties & livelihoods of Black & Brown people in a heartbeat". Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who had previously provided an endorsement of her book, distanced himself from Mos-Shogbamimu's comments.

The same month, she stated on X, "Israel is a shit stain on the human race. That's the tweet." Following a "wave of backlash" online, she stood by her comment: "I. Stand By. Every. Word." Referring to "the monstrous evil apartheid terrorist state of Israel", Mos-Shogbamimu wrote, "I unapologetically and unequivocally stand with the Palestinians, a persecuted minority, who Israel is committing a holocaust against." 81.103.166.58 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the issue here? We're reporting on how she was described/criticised in relation to her comments. This isn't a "smear". — Czello ^(music) 08:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

No you're not reporting on 'how she was described' you are furthering an actual smear of antisemitism. I can't believe you're asking what the issue is when Wikipedia is trumpeting a smear to millions of people around the world about her because Zionists/Pro-Israel apologists hate her. That is an issue.

She's been described as many things over the years why haven't you reported on that? She's constantly in the thick of controversies on social and racial injustice as well as political activism. Where is the 'reporting' on that? So why report on a smear from Zionists. Why is this 'report' more important? Who are the Goldman family and why are you giving their 'feelings' about her any prominence on her page. The Newcastle University clearly didn't agree with their summation and refused to give in to being bullied by this family so why publish it to the world? Did you do any research on her response to this if any or did she also not give it any air because these views don't hold any substance? Wikipedia is basically doing the job of the Zionists by spreading this falsehood. It is irresponsible.

'Reporting' on more smears using the Jewish Chronicle as 'evidence' when they notoriously go after anyone prominent who courageously speaks out against Israel's actions in Gaza is doubly wrong.

To date in spite of all the false allegations, smears etc no case of hate crime or police investigation etc has been levelled against her so what exactly is the justification for publishing this smear on her Wikipedia page on her profile page? None.

She is a Black Female activist who boldly speaks truth to power, constantly subjected to racism and misogynoir. Plus Dr Shola was just awarded another honorary doctorate degree by another University for her activism & advocacy a few weeks ago.

I strongly suggest removing these paragraphs and being aware that her page will from time to time be used as a weapon against her so such 'reporting' is dangerous and defamatory. 81.103.166.58 (talk) 08:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand it can't be easy to monitor these pages and the accuracy of content therein but I strongly believe that Wikipedia has a duty of care not to be a platform where people's profiles can be doctored by those who hate them especially in controversial times like these over Israel's actions in Gaza.

I don't know how many people have already viewed that content on her Wikipedia page and absorbed the assassination of her character as intended by whoever put it there. I think it should be removed immediately

She's constantly subjected to death threats and threats to her person - smears like the content published will only incite more of these. 81.103.166.58 (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This all seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Do you have any evidence these are "smears" rather than legitimate criticisms? — Czello ^(music) 09:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I note you haven't addressed any of the valid points I raised and now ask for 'evidence'. Do you have any evidence these are 'legitimate' criticisms? What qualifies as 'legitimate criticism' and if you do have a definition under what standard does a Zionist attack of her qualify but not any other 'criticisms' 'attacks' she constantly receives?? It is clear that these paragraphs are a case of 'I don't like her' so why is Wikipedia publishing it?

A smear by its very definition is "damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations" - this is clearly an attempt to character assassinate her as 'antisemitic' to the entire world - why would you need any other evidence but the content therein?

Do you have ANY EVIDENCE she's an antisemite other than accusations from those who oppose her views of Israel? That's not 'legitimate criticism' that's a smear to attempt to destroy her reputation to millions of people around the world that read Wikipedia.

Or is it the case that you don't like her too and you think it's justified to have her character assassinated by unjustified online hit pieces and giving prominence to a Zionist family that hate her? A family that utterly failed to bully a University from rescinding the doctorate degree - the same honorary doctorate degree it awarded to Martin Luther King Jnr? The University clearly saw their demand and accusations against Dr Shola for what it is -smears and character assassination - and rejected their demand.

So how exactly were these entries justified for publishing on Wikipedia? 81.103.166.58 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The criticisms of her come from reliable sources. If you think they should be removed then you need to actively demonstrate why - so far all we have is your belief that they are smears. These criticisms happened, even if you don't personally agree with them. That makes them valid for inclusion.

Also note that we're not saying she's an antisemite in wikivoice, we're saying this is what she's been accused of. — Czello ^(music) 14:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

So you admit she's being accused of antisemitism. You know she's being accused of antisemitism that you can't prove but yet knowingly spread that lie on Wikipedia? Accusations are not criticisms. That is a smear you are broadcasting. None of these 'sources' are reliable. They are hatchet jobs to assassinate her character without proof.

In fact these 'reliable sources' do exactly what you've accused me of - they don't like her anti-Israel views.

Again I ask what makes these 'criticisms' valid and more important than any other 'criticism' she's received which you have not published? Can you justify that?

This insistence on publishing an accusation you can't evidence smacks of bias against Dr Shola.

I have already 'actively demonstrated' why they should be removed yet you can't give 'actively demonstrate' why Wikipedia should publish a false accusation of antisemitism.

An accusation of antisemitism isn't a criticism, it is a smear tantamount to accusing her of a hate crime. You know this.

It is abhorrent that Wikipedia would legitimately platform lies that puts a Black female activist already subject to threats at even more risk by publishing false accusations. 81.103.166.58 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look at it. It is reasonable to cover these matters but the coverage is grossly overblown and written in POV terms. The first two of those four paragraphs are about a single matter and are referenced only to a single article in a local newspaper. The second two paragraphs are about a second single matter and referenced only to the JC. That's not great either. To be clear, I have no problem with Jewish, or even Israeli, sources being used here but the JC is a WP:PARTISAN source and furthermore it is currently embroiled in scandal over its reporting. (I don't mean to overstate this. It sounds far more likely that they got tricked into publishing misinformation than that they did it deliberately.) We need more and better sources here. I propose cutting it down to two fairly short paragraphs, at the maximum, with one paragraph per incident and at least two RS sources on each. If we can't find a non-partisan source for the stuff about the tweets then we should remove it completely. If we can then that source should guide our coverage more than the JC, although the JC can be used too. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the points you've raised Daniel. I think these paragraphs should be removed completely. There is no evidence or proof to back up any of the accusations by the JC in both matters. Both sources are dubious and clearly have a vendetta against Dr Shola. These sources are not non-partisan as is usually the case when Zionists accuse anyone with courage to speak out against Israel of antisemitism.

Their intention is to cause harm to her reputation. These are not criticisms. They are smears. Wikipedia has greater reach to a greater online audience than Jewish Chronicle or Goldman Family or any other Zionist entity. They are using Wikipedia to do their dirty work.

Plus Dr Shola receives criticisms, smears etc that aren't published on her Wikipedia page and I don't see why this false accusation of antisemitism should be given prominence on her page when none of the others have.

Please note she receives threats to her life and person constantly so publishing false accusations of hate like antisemitism will only incite more hate against her. That would be irresponsible of Wikipedia in my opinion. 81.103.166.58 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a week since I raised these concerns and after the discussions above I take it no credible sources have been found to prove any claim of antisemitism against Dr Shola or to give this 'reporting' any legitimacy.

As Daniel has suggested (and I agree) these paragraphs should be removed in their entirety. These sources are non-partisan and the paragraphs are smears.

If there's no further comments in 24 hours, I will delete them. 81.103.166.58 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant as they've been no further comments in the last 24 hours, I will delete them. 81.103.166.58 (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to be reflecting what the sources actually say. The sources you've added don't mention her at all - in which case they're beyond the scope of this article. The sources we already have, as I can see don't mention genocide. Also, "war crimes of extermination" is an extraordinarily loaded phrase that is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. The things you're adding are really for another article; if you can find a source that says her statement was about genocide, then we simply link to the genocide accusation article. Finally, "a Zionist benefactor" is oddly POV phrasing. Why use that rather than be more precise? — Czello ^(music) 16:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)