From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

His name is Mohamed, not Mo. We should respect that! A lot of media in the UK shorten it(since he started winning). If you look at the top left corner you would see that this is "The Free Encyclopedia". Leave calling people nicknames to tabloids and facts to encyclopedias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:2F8D:7500:70F0:1A86:7D8C:F21A ( talk) 02:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Personal life section

Since Mo spoke about his experience with being trafficked as a child, the personal section needs to be updated. In particular the story surrounding his twin brother should be updated, as his parents never moved to the U.K. and Mo's father died when he was 4. I didn't alter this myself as I do not have the sufficient knowledge to accurately describe the correct details.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62123886 2A00:23C8:8886:BB01:44CE:4FBD:3F4B:1C74 ( talk) 22:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Added, but I will leave it to others if they want to expand upon it. - Matuko ( talk) 13:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Encyclopædia Britannica unreliable reference

In view of the July 2022 revelations about his early life, the Encyclopædia Britannica reference, "Mo Farah | Biography & Facts" is no longer reliable or accurate! Although currently listed as ref[8] this reference is right at the top of the Mo Farah article so anyone clicking & following the link will be led to out-of-date information. How can we fix this? 31.124.45.250 ( talk) 17:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

References list...

I don't know how to do it myself, but I think the list of references needs looking at. Refs currently numbered 19 and 139 both link to the same Guardian article, so don't know why they don't both have same number! As mentioned above, the first reference in the article currently shows as no.[8] which seems strange (and the cited source is currently out-of-date) Finally, the RTE ref [18] includes much more of the actual text in the cited source itself than seems normal. Should that not be trimmed down? Does anyone agree and know how to tidy these up? 31.124.45.250 ( talk) 17:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I've sorted it out now, thanks for pointing it out! Greyzxq ( talk) 17:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

His name is Mohamed, not Mo. We should respect that! A lot of media in the UK shorten it(since he started winning). If you look at the top left corner you would see that this is "The Free Encyclopedia". Leave calling people nicknames to tabloids and facts to encyclopedias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:2F8D:7500:70F0:1A86:7D8C:F21A ( talk) 02:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Personal life section

Since Mo spoke about his experience with being trafficked as a child, the personal section needs to be updated. In particular the story surrounding his twin brother should be updated, as his parents never moved to the U.K. and Mo's father died when he was 4. I didn't alter this myself as I do not have the sufficient knowledge to accurately describe the correct details.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62123886 2A00:23C8:8886:BB01:44CE:4FBD:3F4B:1C74 ( talk) 22:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Added, but I will leave it to others if they want to expand upon it. - Matuko ( talk) 13:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Encyclopædia Britannica unreliable reference

In view of the July 2022 revelations about his early life, the Encyclopædia Britannica reference, "Mo Farah | Biography & Facts" is no longer reliable or accurate! Although currently listed as ref[8] this reference is right at the top of the Mo Farah article so anyone clicking & following the link will be led to out-of-date information. How can we fix this? 31.124.45.250 ( talk) 17:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

References list...

I don't know how to do it myself, but I think the list of references needs looking at. Refs currently numbered 19 and 139 both link to the same Guardian article, so don't know why they don't both have same number! As mentioned above, the first reference in the article currently shows as no.[8] which seems strange (and the cited source is currently out-of-date) Finally, the RTE ref [18] includes much more of the actual text in the cited source itself than seems normal. Should that not be trimmed down? Does anyone agree and know how to tidy these up? 31.124.45.250 ( talk) 17:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I've sorted it out now, thanks for pointing it out! Greyzxq ( talk) 17:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook