This is an archive of past discussions about Marco Polo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
......Il Milione was dictated by Marco Polo to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello translated it from Venetian Language to Tuscan dialect,.....
Rustichello didn't translate in Tuscan dialect (Dolce stil novo), but in the OIL language...... See Le divisament dou monde
At time the OIL language was used from Crusaders and from Western merchants in Asia as LINGUA FRANCA.
At the time the use of the Dolce stil novo (based on Tuscan language) had yet to be accepted among the intelligentsia classes of the peninsula.
I have no real opinion on the subject right now, but according to the German wikipedia (and other non english ones) there seems to be langues d’oïl and langue d'oc and the latter being the one spoken in southern France, Spain, Northern Italy and possibly used as lingua franca by merchants in the Mediterranean. The en.wp entry on seems to have issues and might be faulty.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have changed it, but I've simplified, because it is essentially in the Langue d'Oil, but it is strongly mixed with venetian words.
In Asia the merchants spoke a mixture based on crusaders aristocracy language the old French. It was mixed with the languages of the merchants especially the Venetian and Genoa.
For example existed texts of a curious mix French-Venetian literature
The divisions into neo-latin “modern categories” we have invented later with “national idea”.
It is possible that Rustichello and Polo both speak in this common language to understand each other.
My English is certainly not good, if someone can rewrite the paragraph better... thank you.
--Andriolo (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph
Marco Polo is famous for his memoirs, that he told to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello wrote a book in langues d'oil: The Devisament du Monde, language that he known very well and that was used as Lingua Franca from crusaders and western merchants in orient.[1] The clergy and notaries used the Latin. The book became famous in all Europe and quickly it was translated into many languages and dialects. In Italy he is known as il Milione. The idea probably was to create a handbook for merchants, substantially a technical book on weights, measures and distances as others books of others authors, today preserved. But due to the particularity of the story, the book became more than a technical manual.[2]
was deleted and replaced with
Il Milione was dictated by Marco Polo to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello translated it from Venetian Language to Tuscan dialect, subsequently embellished, copied by hand and adapted by many others; there is no authoritative version.
---This last paragraph hasn't references because it doesn't exist scientific book that supports the "Tuscany translation".
If the text is not grammatically correct, please improve it.
But the paragraph with the UNACEPTABLE ERROR about Rustichello “Dolce Stil Novo” (Tuscany) translation cannot stay.
The information that Rustichello wrote in Tuscany is simply stupid and has no historical evidences.
It seems that someone wants to give to Rustichello the role of precursor of Dante or Cavalcanti ?
It would be a huge discovery for Italian literature. ;-)))
I ask an arbitration.
--Andriolo (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A correction could be:
Marco Polo told his memoirs to Rustichello da Pisa while both were prisoners of the Genova Republic. Rustichello wrote The Devisament du Monde, in langues d'oil that was used as Lingua Franca from crusaders and western merchants in orient.[1] The book translated into many languages and dialects became famous in all Europe. In Italy he is known as il Milione. The idea probably was to create a handbook for merchants, substantially a text on weights, measures and distances as others today preserved. But due to the particularity of the story, it became more than a technical manual.[2]
Have you an opinion ?
--Andriolo (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I put it newly because Rustichello didn't write in Tuscan language..... He wasn't author of Dolce Stil Novo school. Il Milione isn't a book of Italian literature. See every serious book on IL Milione. --Andriolo (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Death date
This doesn't seem to have been discussed before. The lede says 8 January 1324, without qualification. So does the infobox. Any casual reader skimming the intro will come away with the view that 8 January 1324 is his accurate death date. It's only if one reads more closely that one discovers it's not that certain after all. All we know for sure is that it happened between the sunsets of 8 and 9 January 1324. Mathematically speaking, assuming sunset happens around 6 pm, he's 3 times more likely to have died on 9 January than on 8 January. Yet we say 8 January as if that was established fact. Why is this? Can we not at least say 8-9 January, with a footnote explaining the uncertainty? -- Jack of Oz[your turn]10:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Very likely it is optimal, since I've changed it to the date recorded on Polo's will (No original research over here). I've checked and sunset in Venice on 8 January falls at 16:44, so you might have to redo your maths. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Still 2.31 times more likely to be 9 Jan than 8 Jan by our reckoning. But that's not the point. The point is that their day ended at sunset, and the next day started at sunset. So, if a document from that time is signed with the date "9 January", it means it was signed by our reckoning at some time between 4:45 pm 8 Jan and 4:45 pm 9 Jan. We can never know, from the date alone, on just exactly which date in our reckoning the event occurred. Now, the dating of the will is one thing, and Polo's death is a later event. But how much later? It could have been 5 minutes or approaching 24 hours or anywhere in between. We just don't know.
In any case, there's a glaring inconsistency between having any specific date in the lede, and the following: "Due to the Venetian law stating that the day ends at sunset, the exact date of Marco Polo's death cannot be determined, but it was between the sunsets of January 8 and 9, 1324.". -- Jack of Oz[your turn]11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Exist also the "more veneto" question. Indeed the year for the state burocracy began in March and not January. So for example 10-february-1480(more veneto) could be 10-february-1481(normal year). The history is not easy.... ;-)
Your grandfather existed because it is registered in the State Archives (I hope ...) for Marco Polo is the same.
Venice was civilized area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.74.148 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Commemoration
I think this should go into the article, but maybe others might think it isn't significant enough: There is a larger-than-life statue of Marco Polo just of Sukhbata Square in Ulanbaatar. (I can probably take a picture of it if it is mentioned in the article. Kdammers (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Fra Mauro map, you mean? Presumably, it's oriented this way to reflect the standard North on top. --Tone13:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Fraud
Not only we know now that the book is a fraud, but Marco Polo might not even existed. Not even a mention of that!? And in the article about the book the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.3.232 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
(irony needs)
Marco Polo did not drink tea!! ..... Indeed the Mongols at 5 o'clock, drinking tea marketed from British Empire or perhaps cultivated during the migration of the Horde in the steppes of Asia....
In Venice, in Constantinople or Holy Land, the people didn’t know infusions of various plants indeed the Venetians Greeks or Arabs would have been shocked if they discovered that the Indians drank tea.
The Mongols also maintained efficient the Great Wall…. was essential for the migration of Horde and to defend Cathay
Finally (cherry on the cake) … obviously Marco Polo was fluent in Mandarin…. --84.222.76.224 (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
________________________________
The book of Francis Wood doesn’t meet the academic standards nor the historical-critical method based on the intersection of various sources, the text would be struck down by any peer review. It is a novel with superficial arguments.
The controversy does not make sense, because on Marco Polo, we have numerous archival references that a serious historian should consider: will, letters, gifts, documents of Procuratori di San Marco, ecc. We know something about of the history of his family, the genealogy, childrens, relationship.
Finally there is the framework: there are others travelers went to the Mongols in that period of Mongol PAX, we have information on Cathay and Mongols also from manuals of commerce, reports by missionaries and spies.
On the same way, you could put into question the existence of Enrico Dandolo, Henry VIII or Gensis Khan, or your great-grandfather.
--84.222.76.224 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Marco Polo likely had not been to China as Mongol Empire and Europe were at odd at the time, only chance is that Maropolo was a spy for the Mongol, or spied for the Vatican, or both. but he did not work for the vatican nor the Italian court so he was not useful to the Mongol, he delivered no mail for either party neither.
When the Yuan empire collapsed, millions of foreigners , merchants and diplomats and such fled china as Ming would not host them anymore, they became useless , they had to leave china. . thus vast amound of information slipped back to the Middle-East or bordering europe as many states in that regions were allied with the Khan, where Marco picked up the info. for free, as repatriots would not hesitate to tell their tales. Marco seemed to have all the information gathered at or after the time of the collapse of the Mongol empire.
Well it looks like the anon ip above was never registered, OR, the person has since been banned and his user ID removed - no matter. Even during the time of the 1223/24 "reconnaissance in force" of the Mongol generals Subutai and Jebe, Europeans were sent back to Mongolian held territories far to the east. Subotai had made contact with Genoese traders and even enlisted their aid. During the later general invasion of Russia & Hungary under Batu, more Europeans from Russia and the Carpathians were either sent or voluntarily attended the Great Khan's court at Korakorum, and more attended the later courts of Guyuk and Mongka. Anyway, the Polos' journeys have been validated by modern scholars, so the opinion above if just so much goat-produced fertilizer and a personal opinion without any facts whatsoever to back it up.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
MAIN ARTICLE MENTIONING OF GREAT WALL FACT NOT TRUE
Please don't be that ignorant. Your article is written by ignorant people.
The great wall was well maintained and functioning at the time of Mongol invasion, it held up the advance of the Mongols so well the Song army won the war at times, realizing that fact, the Mongol's great general rounded his troupes and invaded China for the N times from the South West instead, hence bypassing the Great Walls.
So the main page mentioning the Great Wall didn't exist until the Ming Dynasty is so NOT TRUE please correct your ignorant error.!
Imagine if the Great Wall did not exist until the Ming time then there were no need to fight, the Mongols just advanced smoothly without much of resistance. The Song defended China till the last man thanks to the Great Wall of China.
why Wiki is so ignarant at times?
The above poster may be the same as the poster from the section above ... Btw, if you are going to throw around words like "ignorant" you may want to make sure you spell it correctly (oh, the irony.) The "Great Wall" didn't exist in the time of the Mongols. Previous defensive walls were earthen & stone structures that were not connected directly like the Ming-era Great Wall that we know today. The Song were southern Chinese dynasty; the Jin dynasty in the north which technically had contact with the early walls were exterminated by Jenghiz Khan. Since the time of the above posting - whenever it was - let's hope the poster has educated himself and is now somewhat red-faced denying all claim of the post. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Well a more precise formulation would be, that the current shape of much of the great wall (it's current form) did not exist back then, since it stems from Ming era. Older versions of the great wall did however exist during Mongolian period. Individual walls/defense structures date back to the 7th century BC and the first attempt to organize them into one connected defensive structure protecting all of northern China date back to the first emperor (220 BC).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Fun fact
I would like to add this to the page, however I am not yet able to. I have done extensive research on historical figures of Italy, and I read this in a biography of Marco Polo's life. I did confirm this story with my history professor as well. The pool game Marco Polo was actually started because during one of Polo's journey's to China, Polo and his Uncle Maffeo, I believe, were crossing the Ganges River, and the current was incredibly strong, and as a result, Polo fell under the water and was having difficulty standing up. His uncle called out "Marco! Marco!", and Polo replied with "Polo!, Polo!" and his uncle came to him and saved him. If you would add this, that would be fantastic, it's just an interesting fact that so few people know, plus no one understands the background of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcooper3 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request - 'Old Man of the Mountain' and Muslims
Can we have a mention put in of "Marco Polo's stereotyped, highly influential, and highly prejudicial description of the 'Old Man of the Mountain', a text of virtually mythic status and power." Quote is of Bruce Lincoln[1].
I'm happy to make the edit myself, it's just I don't want to be accused of vandalism (this article is semi-protected). And could someone add this to Further reading?
* {{cite journal |last= Lincoln |first= Bruce |authorlink= Bruce Lincoln |year= 2006 |title= An Early Moment in the Discourse of "Terrorism": Reflections on a Tale from Marco Polo |journal= [[Comparative Studies in Society and History]] |volume= 48 |issue= 2 |pages= 242-259 |jstor= 3879351 }} Lincoln, Bruce (2006). "An Early Moment in the Discourse of "Terrorism": Reflections on a Tale from Marco Polo". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 48 (2): 242–259. JSTOR3879351.
This is an abstract on the paper - which btw, requires a paid subscription to read, so this is going to be exceedingly difficult for other editors to access and verify: An Early Moment in the Discourse of “Terrorism:” Reflections on a Tale from Marco Polo, Bruce Lincoln, University of Chicago
Abstract
My goal in this paper is to revisit a classic text that raises the most contemporary of issues: Marco Polo's stereotyped, highly influential, and highly prejudicial description of the “Old Man of the Mountain,” a text of virtually mythic status and power. Having invoked the category of “myth,” however, in a context where it is not commonly applied, it is useful to indicate how I use this term and why it seems appropriate. To begin, I would reject three widely accepted notions. First, myths are not sacred narratives. Although many myths claim sacred status, in this they misrecognize their own nature, for they are human stories, like any other. They simply make more exaggerated claims to a more elevated kind of authority. Second, myths are not collective narratives or the speech of any group as a whole. Rather, they are stories that are told and retold in countless variants. Often the authorship of these variants is unacknowledged, forgotten, or deliberately hidden, but in its details each variant advances the specific interests of those responsible for its production, revision, and circulation. These anonymous agents and absent authors misrepresent themselves—and those for whom they speak—as the group as a whole. Third, myths are neither false stories, nor true, but simply stories that claim to speak with authority about issues of deep importance. Sometimes these claims succeed and sometimes they fail, and the same story can change its status over time from myth to fable and back again, since such status is a function of reception. (Published Online March 8 2006) - do you have access to this paper and can you give a synopsis of the point you make? Also the qualifications of the author will need to be known - if this is some graduate thesis, it won't qualify as a Reliable Source for Wikipedia.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Which 4 languages did he know, and how did he make his living on the journey?
He knew an Italian dialect that was his 'mother tongue' - at that time, Italian had not been standardized throughout Italy. In the Travels of Marco Polo, Marco Polo said that he could understand four languages including their alphabets and ways of writing during his stay in China. However, he did not state clearly what they were, which left space for later generations' speculation.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Grammar Mistake?
I think there's a grammar mistake in the article. Under Genoese captivity and later life there's a sentence that reads: "However, it is more likely that information were irrelevant."
Seems to me like the sentence should really say something like... "However, it is more likely that Marco Polo considered those pieces of information irrelevant." or "However, it is more likely that the information was irrelevant."
"Christopher Columbus was inspired enough by Polo's description of the Far East to visit those lands for himself"
This seems to be saying that Columbus visited the Far East, which is news to me. It needs to be adjusted in some way to make clear that he attempted this but failed due to faulty understanding of geography. 86.160.219.242 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Please add {{Wikivoyage|On the trail of Marco Polo}} in the external links section, directly below {{wikisource author}}, to add a link as shown here. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 19 March 2013
Please undo this, per previous discussions on this talk page/archives which have established through consensus it is impossible to give his exact date-of-birth.
It's elaborated on in the 'early life' section, The exact time and place of Marco Polo's birth are unknown....
I have got project from school to write important things about marco polo so can help me finding important point on him and his voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishayal (talk • contribs) 01:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on November 06, 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
A modern category applied to historical figure, the definition "Marco Polo italian merchant" does not exist in the peer review bibliography.
--Andriolo (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Please, Andriolo, stop this. There are tons of comments of yours in the Italian wiki, about this claim. Not again, here. "daghe un tajo", ok?--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Factual error
Hi everyone!
I'm a medievalist studying at the University of Sydney. Came across a factual error on the Marco Polo page:
In the opening section, it is claimed that Marco Polo is 'not the first European to visit China' (correct) but that he was the first to leave a detailed account of his experience (incorrect!). There are several others before him to have done so, most notably John de Plano Carpini and William of Rubruck.
This needs to be rectified!
What can certainly be said is that Marco Polo's account became much more popular to medieval readers than these previous writers had been.
I took a picture of a statue of MP, I can upload the pciture if it is allowable. The statue is outdoors in Ulaanlaatar and I didn't see any sculptor attribution.Kdammers (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Derivative Works Decision TreeIf the photograph was taken by you, and the statue is permiently in a public place under natural light (or your own personal light) and you could choose your view point, then is can be included here as a derivative work. Maybe better in sister site WikiCommons. See Commons:Derivative works for more detalis. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
See [2] and [3] about a new book byBenjamin B. Olshin, a historian of cartography, The Mysteries of the Marco Polo Maps. See "But as Olshin is first to admit, the authenticity of the ten maps and four texts is hardly settled. The ink remains untested, and a radiocarbon study of the parchment of one key map—the only one subjected to such analysis—dates the sheepskin vellum to the 15th or 16th century, a sign the map is at best a copy. Another quandary is that Polo himself wrote nothing of personal maps or of lands beyond Asia, though he did once boast: “I did not tell half of what I saw.”" and the rest which suggests that the provenance of these is pretty dodgy. Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Worth mention. WP - at least in theory, even if not in the practice of some dogmatic editors out there - is not Brittanica, and therefore should reflect the constantly evolving state of knowledge. Even if the whole question were somehow debunked - a claim of which I would be automatically suspicious - the issue would deserve treatment. Was going to add it myself unless you proceed first. Chris Rodgers (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Venetian, not Italian
I guess Marco Polo was Venetian, as he had lived in the Republic of Venice..
While true that there was no modern nation state called Italy in the 13th century, people in and outside the peninsula sometimes referred to its various inhabitants as "Italians" by virtue of it being a special administrative division of the Roman Empire that was considered the territory of the city of Rome (known as Italia in both ancient Latin and modern Italian). Hence it held a unique status, in both military and administrative terms. Following the Social War, it was the first region of the Roman Republic to be given sweeping rights to citizenship. Only the Edict of Caracalla in 212 AD, extending citizenship to all freedmen of the entire empire, rivaled it in the scope of granting citizenship in one single event. Of course, people of various provinces could gain citizenship before Caracalla, but it was done on a case-by-case basis.
Then, when the Western Roman Empire fell, it was replaced by the Kingdom of Italy under the first King of Italy Odoacer, a ruler of Scirii descent. The Germanic Ostrogothic King Theoderic the Great killed him and basically assumed the title under his Ostrogothic Kingdom. So yes, Marco Polo specifically belonged to the Republic of Venice, but barring the possibility of his Croatian background, one could easily say he was also an Italian by virtue of being born on the Italian peninsula. In the Middle Ages the geographic distinction of there being an "Italy" was at least observed, despite the political fragmentation.Pericles of AthensTalk12:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Video Games
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The video games 'uncharted-among thieves' should be added to to the 'other media' as the second game in the series is based around marco polo, The narrative opens with a quote attributed to Marco Polo, "I did not tell half of what I saw, for I knew I would not be believed." and the game follows the main characters quest to find what happened on one of marco polos voyages from china in 1292, this is from the games wikipedia page In a flashback, it is discovered some time ago that to uncover Marco Polo's doomed voyage from China in 1292, Nate (the main character) agreed to steal a Mongolian oil lamp which belonged to Polo from an Istanbul museum, with former associate Harry Flynn (Steve Valentine) and old girlfriend Chloe Frazer (Claudia Black). The lamp contains flammable blue resin, which lights a map that shows Polo's fleet shipwrecked in Borneo, carrying the Cintamani Stone from Shambhala.[3]D0S81 (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add to Literature section:
Rachel Cantor's A Highly Unlikely Scenario (2014), in which Polo converses from his jail cell in Genoa with a time-traveling pizza-complaints guy.
[4]NichD86 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
"Venetian" or "Italian"? Maybe "Venetian (Italian)" is the best option
Given that the wiki article itself recognizes Marco Polo as born in Venice I think we should add a reference to his Italian nationality. Although Italy was not an independent nation at the time, people born on the Italian peninsula were commonly recognized as "Italians" by foreigners. Plus, wikipedia itself records Dante Alighieri (Florence, 1265) and Galileo Galilei (Pisa, 1564 and many other prominent Italian figures of the time as Italians: I don't see why Marco Polo deserves a special treatment. Can somebody please change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.208.227 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Response 1/30/15: Neither --- in fact it may be better to say he was born in the "Republic of Venice" as there is unclear evidence of exactly where he was born. He certainly made his way to living in Venice at some point whether born or not, but hard to say where he was born. His family is from the Dalmatian Coast (as the Michele T. Mazzucato reference explains in the Italian reference), and may have been born outside the city proper. To try to say exactly where would not be appropriate without further knowledge. Also, defining Italian in this case has too many nuances between cultural heritage, actual birth place, national pride, etc that is too hotly debated among Croatians and Italians. Is there enough consensus to make the change officially to "Republic of Venice"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.231.217 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
17:41, 30 January 2015 38.100.231.217 (talk) . . (10,732 bytes) (+787) . . (→"Venetian" or "Italian"? Maybe "Venetian (Italian)" is the best option: Response to comment) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.231.217 (talk)
I'm not debating about the place of birth, which, by the way, is clearly stated in the article itself. I'm just saying that the principle of coherence would require to either state Marco Polo's nationality as "Italian" (see Dante Alighieri, Galileo Galilei or Giuseppe Garibaldi) or, and I think this is the best option, to erase the nationality field (see Charlemagne or El Cid)from ALL THE HISTORICAL CHARACTERS BORN BEFORE THE OFFICIAL DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOVEREIGN MODERN STATE that geographically includes their place of birth. It's irritating to see some characters randomly stated as "French" or "Italian" or "Spanish", others stated as "Venetian" or "Castillan" or "Occitan" and others with no nationality at all. We need a rationale.2001:620:610:814:1C66:3653:BEAB:BAE0 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Contrada of San Giovanni Crisostomo
I think it's better that we should delete this. It's not good for a GA article to have a citation needed sticker in it. From what I could find in google, this Giovanni Crisostomo appeared (correct me if I'm wrong) later in Marco Polo's life. [4]
Are there any relevant non-croatian (non-pseudo)historians that believe he was born in croatia? I think not (wish was then part of venice, italy and croatia did not exist)
I had a well thought out and written explanation on why both points of view could be seen as valid, but unfortunately my PC crashed and I'm definitely not re-writing it.
Anyway, whoever wrote the comment above can maybe go and read about Mozart's nationality and draw their own parallels between this case and that one. If you conclude that Mozart is Austrian, then Marco Polo should be a Croatian - if you believe that he was born on the Croatian side of the Adriatic coast, for which I believe no proper evidence actually exists (but some historians do, although most agree its something called "invented tradition").
Italy is considered a direct successor state to the Republic of Venice and in that sense Marco Polo is Italian. Although we've labelled him as Italian on this basis for many years this is wrong, since Italy didn't exist back then. The Chinese may disagree with me on this one btw., having invited the Croatian president to open the Marco Polo museum in Yangzhou (which is probably why the Croatians are in a huff about M. Polo's origins all of a sudden - but further proof that it's not just "pseudo-historians").
For the purpose of this article I think he should be labelled as a Venetian, and not as an Italian (as I'm sure all the serious references label him already). This is because neither the modern state of Croatia or Italy were around when Marco Polo was alive, and a national sense didn't exist from either of the two nations now laying claim. It may be hard to understand for some that this man was born in a time when he would have called himself a Venetian, and laughed at anyone labeling him either an Italian or a Croatian (or any other nationality for that matter).
So, I'd propose changing "...was a Italian merchant traveller" to "...was a Venetian merchant traveller".
I agree completely. I doubt it's supported by Croatian historians, actually I'm quite sure it's not, it's just some of them told it and medias got hyped. If that didn't happen none from Croatia would even mention it, though I believe to Croatia was more important be prove birthplace because of tourism, rather than possible slavic/croatian origin.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Marco Polo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
There are several references in the article to Polo's writings, but no document's are called out for which he is the author. The only historical document mentioned is Livres des merveilles du monde which was writing by Rustichello da Pisa. Even if the stories originate from Polo, Pisa is the author. If there are actual writings by Polo, a section should be included that lists them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.36.237.148 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Date of birth
The wording on this is rather confusing: "Marco Polo was born between September 15 and 16, 1254" but is clearly explained later: Due to the Venetian law stating that the day ends at sunset, the exact date of Marco Polo's death cannot be determined, but it was between the sunsets of January 8 and 9, 1324. I'm trying to think of a good way to edit the birth date statement to clarify, any suggestions? Aaron Bruce (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
4th sentence, 3d paragraph under "Debate"
The sentence needs removal of duplicate 'today' instances:
"Latham has argued that today it is difficult to tell today precisely just how much of The Book of Marvels was Polo and how much Rustichello.[" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.158.45 (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion
I suggest that the spelling used for first instance of Marco Polo's uncle in "Niccolo and Matteo Polo" be changed to "Maffeo Polo" to be consistent with the spelling used for his name in the rest of the article. Thanks! 68.35.140.198 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Polo family origin
The article mentions earliest (Venetian) historical sources which mention Polo family, and along with it its non-Venetian origin. However, the informative academical source, from where this info was cited, also mentions recent book in Croatian Lucidar Marka Pola (2008), in which intro Italian Ambassador Alessandro Grafini wrote "...[translated] Traces of the Polo family in Venice go back even in the distant year of 971. It is the authentic signature of a certain Marco Polo recorded in one commercial document. Branches of the Polo family are mentioned in Chioggia already in the XI. century, while in the XII. century are recorded on the island Torcello. In both these places were found documents of trade and public documents signed by the members of the Polo family. Other traces are located in the city of Venice in neighborhoods San Giuliano, San Felice, San Geremia and San Leonardo". Problem with this intriguing info, and possbile evidence, is the fact that it's unknown to the public (even scholarship circles), which I doubt it would be, especially in Italy. Thing is, while are known exact source and date of Venetian sources from 14th century onward, there's none mentioned in this short book intro, which raises doubts in its validity. Is there some book in Italian or English where this "evidence" is further and more in detail analyzed?--Crovata (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Found - pg. 24–25 in the work by Laurence Bergreen, source already cited in the article. In 971 was mentioned Domenico Polo, while the ambassador mistaken him with Marco Polo from 1168, Marco Polo's great-uncle.--Crovata (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Extensive modification bordering to good faith disruption
The article has been during the last days extensively edited by User:Crovata. Sourced edits have been replaced with unsourced (such as Marco Polo's birthplace). Now I want to believe that so many modifications are done in good faith (and actually I might personally agree with some changes), but it is not acceptable to change completely an article without joining the discussion first, especially in view of the fact that the current version of the article is the result of extensive discussions made during the last 5 years. Also Crovata made exactly 21 consecutive small edits. Never seen anything like that: this is obviously disruptive. Crovata, please discuss the different topics one by one in the talk page. And if you do not mind, when you believe that something is unsourced / insufficiently sourced, please tag it and discuss here before removing everything.Silvio1973 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I never seen this, that someone "adopts" article to themselves. I majorly improved the article. What you done and said is clear exaggerating and inventing ("Never seen anything like that: this is obviously disruptive"). I am editing from the first day according Wikipedia principles, WP:NPOV, and what you done and brought here, have nothing to do with it, yet personal subjective viewpoint and nationalism, which my edits have nothing to do with. I personally believe, as we discussed recently in some article, that your concern is dealing more with my personal nationality then the article. You bring to the point that I have defend not edits, but that their self-justification by the sources and references. That's not good faith, yet discriminatory on several levels. I know very well WP:BOLD, we should discuss the article and not editors, but this discussion deals more with your personal conern ie. misunderstanding, especially unjustified removal of sourced information, then my edits at all. --Crovata (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
As for "Sourced edits have been replaced with unsourced (such as Marco Polo's birthplace)", the Marco Polo's birthplace is unknown, that's a mainstream fact.--Crovata (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I invite everyone to take a step back. The fact is that the topic in question has been rather controversial in the past, regarding article edits. The last version was considered a compromise and lasted quite a while. Therefore I suggest we discuss major changes on the talkpage before implementing them. Edit warring helps noone. --Tone10:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Tone: There's nothing controversial in those edits, yet it's controversial in the "eyes" with nationalistic viewpoint. I am not familiar with the past of the article, and don't know what and in which points was the compromise, but what I saw was GA article (don't understand how did pass the criteria) with serious lack of information and references. After searching what I saw was not a compromise, but one-sided viewpoint which is against the evidence and even the sources previously used. We should not revert sourced information. We should discuss why sourced and reliable evidence and scholarship viewpoint bothers some editors. Nationalism is no excuse. I don't intend to edit warring, yet defend WP:NPOV. Editor Silvio1973 should explain his viewpoint, because reverting reliable and neutral edits, and labelling them as disruptive on null basis is not how we behaviour on Wikipedia. I did not expect it, and suppose his concern and precaution is only due to the previous experience with the article. I hope for a constructive talk. --Crovata (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Crovata: Nationalism has nothing to do with my post. The current version of the article has been stable for quite a while. And seen how controversial the article had been in the past, this fact merits consideration. Certainly the article can be improved and actually I quite agree on some of your modifications. So, let's discuss here all topics requiring attention. Do not take it personally, but the article has been reinstated to the status quo ante your modifications. I approve WP:BOLD, but the current version of the article is the result of a compromise found after long discussions so any change has to be discussed first here. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Silvio1973: Your stand that "any change has to be discussed first here" sounds more like "it has to be discussed first by me, given my approval", not explicitly you, but anyone, as no one has the authority to give approval on reliable and constructive information, and especially not labelling them disruptive. That's not how Wikipedia is edited. The argument for the article has been stable is invalid as I saw it many times being pulled over in discussions. The correct transcribe would be inactivity, and low amount of quality edits. However, lets put that aside and concentrate on the matter. Firstly, "any change has to be discussed first here" cannot be began by me because there were to many edits (no matter if they had been in one or many separate edits, that's just the result of article revision), it's ridiclious to discuss each of them, and I simply don't know what is bothering, only can suppose. Secondly, if you "quite agree on some of ... modifications", and we (ie. you) know what modifications pass (suppose about his biography in general), then what modifications currently do not pass (suppose the section "Family origin"), and make the whole revision being reverted? You must pinpoint the statements, sources, or issues. You started this discussion.--Crovata (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Crovata: of course you do not need my approval. But mind well that the article has been in the current state for long time, so if you want to change something you need to bring new elements justifying the change. I am not intending to change anything in the article (even if I dislike some things) because I know how difficult it was to get to a stable version. So, if you want to change something the WP:BURDEN it's on you. However, changing the Marco Polo's birthplace or his date of birth it's not a banal thing. Far from that. The last time the decision was taken screening a large amount of sources and many, many users had their say. So if you want now to change it, you should bring new elements and expect other users to join. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@Silvio1973: Again intentional creating of a vicious circle. That's not an argument and way how Wikipedia is edited. If we edited every article this way, then talk pages would have been spammed with useless walls of text, and that's not the case because it is simply ridiclious. You're again intentionally ignoring answering the issue. You started this discussion, joined it, and still did not say a single word what is disruptive by you in the 7,393 bytes of reverted reliably sourced information. If there's no need for approval from your side - and you started this discussion still without pointing where and what's the issue - then don't revert other constructive edits and call them disruptive. As for the "large amount of sources" (which you're by the way collecting in your sandbox) - we're not going to prove anything, beside only one thing - that there exist Italian nationalistic propaganda, tourism promotion (the same like Korčula), or simply the fact - "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". There's no historical evidence ie. primary source that he was born in Venice, neither it's universally accepted by the scholarship. Even Britannica puts "Venice?". We edit Wikipedia according WP:NPOV (neutrality, and my revision was neutral), and there's no compromise with nationalism, suspicions and theories. Italian national scholarship invented Venice as his birthplace for granted, and the date of birth on "September 15-16" is even bigger fabrication (the source does not refer to any modern or primary source for date of birth). As for him being called an Italian, Italy or Italians as a modern nation did not exist in that time, neither we know whether he felt like an Italian. He was a merchant from Venice, part of the former Venice Republic, and was part of the Venetian social high class. He was Venetian, not an Italian. This same argument you recently used at the article of non-Italian people like Fausto Veranzio (removing his Croatian nationality ie. ethnicity), and did not remove the Italian nationality ie. ethnicity on the article by Marco Polo or other Italians from pre 19th century. That's simply double standard, almost chauvinism (national superiority). There's no compromise with evidence and truth. As for the "you need to bring new elements justifying the change", weren't all the statements, and even those previous, with references from reliable source (which validity and quality suppose you did not even check)? If you still have nothing constructively to say about the disruptive issues - then I ask for revert because of the Wikipedia and public sake.--Crovata (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Marco Polo was Venetian and not Italian; most sources agree on that. The issue of chauvinism is perhaps on the Croatian side. Modern Italian historiography considers Marco Polo Venetian, but for some reasons the Croatians consider him Croatian. Croatian Wikipedia even consider Marco Polo part of the Croatian history. So do not lecture me on chauvinism. However, this is WP:OTHERSTUFF. What is your problem? The birthplace? The date of birth? Well, if this is the case feel free to open a new section, explain your point and support it with sources.Silvio1973 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Throwing nationalistic balls without arguments - "chauvinism is perhaps on the Croatian side...", that's typical chauvinism. Citing Croatian Wikipedia (which as argument for chauvinism is invalid simply because almost all South Slavic Wikipedia's are (ultra) nationalistic edited, ie. not enough critically edited and checked (even are against national encyclopedias), and personally do not want talking about that disgrace), while again ignoring most of the reply and the most important part. "What is your problem? The birthplace? The date of birth?". No, do you even read what I wrote several times? Don't play smart, and say already what's your problem? You started the whole discussion, you reverted edits of over 7,393 bytes with references from reliable sources (calling them "disruptive"), which expanded more than simple birthplace and date of birth. What you want? That I copy-paste the whole 7,393 bytes on a talk page? Talk page is for discussion, not the place for wall of informative text, that's what the article is used. For the revision see the sandbox, and say for once what and where is the issue for calling the edits "disruptive". What statements, sources, whatever is an issue and "disruptive". If you mean that I should start to point each statement with sources to support them - do not make a fool of me. Stop waste my time and start already discussing the discussion itself. You reverted the edits, opened the discussion, and until now did not make a single word what was an issue in that revision for justified revert and this discussion. What you're doing until now seriously belongs to WP:OWNER. Prove otherwise.--Crovata (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, if Croatian Wikipedia is ultra nationalistic it's not my fault. It's just how it looks. I do not speak Croatian, you might appreciate that it's up to Croatian users to solve this issue (if they think it is an issue). Let's return to the present issue. Crovata, do not take me wrong. This article was in the past on the verge to become a real battlefield. It's a big topic: significant changes need to be discussed first here. Let's do it progressively. And if you do not mind let's start from the beginning. What is Marco Polo's birthdate?
The issue is not if we believe or not that Marco Polo was born on the 15th September 1254. I have a strong doubt and if you want my opinion, I think that stating c.1254 should be enough (indeed some historians disagree that he was born in 1254). But I am not a source. On the contrary it is possible to list hundreds of sources (I am not joking) stating that date. Whether each sources reports 15/09/1254 as the result of research (hardly!) or because they are all aligned on the same date set for some reasons during the XIX century (certainly!), this is not our problem. The sources exist, it's what counts. Of course one might argue there are more sources stating c.1254 than sources citing 15/09/1254. Well, the research I did two years ago showed me it is not the case. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
We agree on WP:OR and things in general, you do not need to say that to other experienced editors. However, you obviously do not know how objectively, neutral, and historically correct edit Wikipedia, when you fall on a simple test like that. The 15/09/1254 is pure fabbrication, and the "list [of] hundreds of sources ... stating that date ... it's what counts", is as an argument invalid. Most of the sources do not discuss the historical evidence, or even have in-book references (WP:BIASED). They follow the pattern without examining it. Most of the sources out there, on whatever topic, can be used as references for established and general info (to not over use some sources), but on things, lets call it "controversial", the primacy have academical and those sources (mostly by reliable scholars) in which the "controversial" topic is discussed. There's simply no historical evidence whatever that Marco Polo was born on 15/09/1254, and even the year 1254 is scholars calculation - the end.--Crovata (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, now I go to bed. I will answer to you in details tomorrow. In the meantime please appreciate that if you want to discuss with me, you need to be more polite (this is not so much of a request), because I am polite with you. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I am working on the article of the Huns, and sincerely don't expect you need to write immediately. You don't need to write such replies, it's unrelated with the article, but not so useless for the discussion's health. Let's stick to the topic. The politness from both, to be correct, in recent time was more than questionable, and I hope for better understanding in the upcoming days. Salute.--Crovata (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's move forward. First of all, let's make things very clear: I am absolutely convinced that Marco Polo's birthdate was "calculated", but my opinion has little value because I never published a book on Marco Polo. However, the fact the Britannica says c.1254 strongly justifies the proposed change. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a copy of the Britannica and we cannot ignore that eminent historians use in their works the date 15 (sometime 14 or 16) September 1254. In a nutshell, and whatever we might think, Marco Polo's birthdate on 15/09/1254 is not WP:FRINGE. My proposal is to report in the body of the article the date 15/09/1254 (and say this is the birthdate only according to some historians), but to use c.1254 in the infobox.Silvio1973 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
We move forward as I said - the 15/09/1254 is a complete fabbrication, invention based on none evidence ie. primary source. Only because that some historians mention it in their books (because someone previously invented it, and it got copy-pasted without examination) it does not justify its inclusion simply because they do not reconsider it, neither is universally accepted. It is fringe when actual encyclopedias do not have it in their work, and even more books have clear position on the matter - that his exact date and place of birth is archivally unknown until c. 15 years of age. Everything else is unobjective, not neutral, and just simple propagation of misinformation. Inclusion of a clear simple fabbrication as of the birthdate (which cannot be theorized on any basis), compared to other theories (which can be theorized on several basis and are informative), does not improve the article anyhow (WP:ONUS). --Crovata (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess someone for some reasons invented (or calculated if you prefer) that date, perhaps during the XIX or XVIII century and for some reasons the information propagated until now. But now, either you can claim that it's "fabrication" because a source says it (and you need something reliable) or more elegantly we ignore this date. We do not even need to cite the 15/09/1254 in the lead, but somewhere in the body of the article (section "Early life") we write that despite many sources claim that Marco Polo's birthdate is 15/09/1254 there is significant doubt about the reliability of this information. Otherwise the risk is that in 2 months someone will add the birthdate in lead or in the infobox and we will have to start this tedious discussion again. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The 1254 was calculated according Marco Polo's account from the book, while the 15-16/09 is invented. There's a difference. For the article and neutrality is better not to include the 15-16/09 in the main text, however, it can be made a note where will be mentioned this birthdate and its issue (who and when was invented, on what basis etc.). As the mine revision already expanded the "Notes", this would improve the article's section. Even if we do not do that, there's no risk, if we agree and there's a mutual consensus - then it will be reverted according to it.--Crovata (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, it looks really you like to venture in unexplored waters. Invented... I don't know. I just know that it's in many sources. Indeed, I have a doubt. But this is different from claiming that the 15/09/1254 it's an invention. And mind well that eminent scholars still today use that birthdate. However, the Britannica does not. And in general modern historiography tends not to. I am modifying the article in that sense, let's hope it works for you too.Silvio1973 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
First and foremost - your authoritarian behaviour is really getting on nervs. Wikipedia is mutually edited by everbody, and somehow you don't get it. First you reverted all the revision, started this discussion so the info could be previously discussed and reverted back, said "changes need to be discussed first here", and now you edit the article on your own totally ignoring my revision while the discussion is on-going, and you did not even get support for it from my side. What's even worse, you personally say that encyclopedias do not use that date, and even "in general modern historiography tend not to". Do you even read and think about what you're saying? Know what, just say already where's the issue with the revision so I can edit the article properly. Discussing such irrelevant things in such a slow way is really tiresome.--Crovata (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Listen Crovata, I tried to move it forward and not to force any unconsensual matter. And I genuinely believed that you would have agreed with the modification otherwise I would even not dared. I wrote :
Marco Polo was born in Venice in 1254, according to some historians between September 15 and 16. However, modern historiography tends to consider his exact birthdate unknown.
This sounded to me a good compromise. Also I removed from the lead and the infobox any referene to the 15/09/1254. Now, if you have a better proposal go ahead. However, keep in mind one thing: we can put forward the fact that modern historiography and some major encyclopedias (not all of them, by the way) consider Polo's exact birthdate unknown. But we cannot exclude from the body of the article (mind well, I am saying from the body of the article, not from the lead) this fact, because possibly over one hundred sources cite 15/09/1254. Now, if you think that my behavior is authoritarian, feel free to start a discussion with other users. You might be more successful (or may not). Silvio1973 (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You personally insisted that any edit should be previously discussed - there was no mutual agreement, you knew very well my standpoint on the matter, and you even dared to edit misinterpreting my own thoughts like I don't exist, or are less valuable than yours so it can be passed on without check. You're contradicting your own words and what you're doing. What you want from the others, you don't implement on yourself. You see and do what you want - "this sounded to me a good compromise" - to me, where is we? How you can say that "if you have a better proposal go ahead" - have you even read what I wrote and proposed above? You again did not refer to the proposal (about the Notes) in your reply - the same like in the whole discussion - 6 replies - what's the issue about the revision (now situated in my sandbox, where it can be edited without the fuss) so it can be properly reverted. Now you're even spreading the discussion to other editor talk pages, and badmouth me. You wanted this discussion, you have it, and still did not explain where's the issue with the revision, yet looks like, intentionally ignoring the topic of the discussion and other editor. Stop doing that, and answer me for the sake of everbody and everything. --Crovata (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
As about the statement - it's not just modern historiography tends to consider, it's because it is unknown, and that second sentence should be (modified) as the first sentence. According some historians, many historians consider many things, but cannot be given equal or inferior weight to the mainstream scholarship consideration compared to everything some historians consider (if even consider, it's not infrequently a case of simple copy-paste without in-book references). With this, for not again misunderstanding me, I currently don't agree and support the modification of your (statement) edit.--Crovata (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, I have not found any scholar claiming that 15/09/1254 is invented (to use your words). Write a book, get it published and try to sell as many copies as possible. You will be than entitled to write in the article that the 15/09/1254 is invented. The fact is that over 100 (not joking) sources using 15/09/1254 for Polo's birthdate can be cited. And mind well, I also think it's a doubtful date but I am not ready to ignore that such a large number of sources exist, because this is not the way WP works. The very best we can do is to remove the birthdate from the infobox and from the lead. And just say in the body of the article that although part of the sources cite it, modern historiography (or if you prefer some major encyclopedias) don't.
Now, if you think this is not a workable compromise, I suggest you to post an RfC or request a 3O. Possibly with input from other users we can converge to consensus more easily. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Find me 100 sources, and compare them to 1000 sources which do not. There don't even exist 100 sources, don't joke with loose arguments. It is invented, because there's none scholarship source and primary source to consider its validity. The simple lack of scholarship review and ignorance on the matter of 15/09 tells how much is that info (ir)relevant. It's not mine POV, I found it in the sources from your own sandbox: Sam Rogers, What's So Great About Marco Polo?: A Biography of Marco Polo Just for Kids!, "Some people think that his birthday may have been September 15 of that year, but the lack of good records makes it hard to double check that date"; Kristin Petrie, Marco Polo, "his birth date is uncertain...". Have a really hard time finding even an Italian source on this matter, only one is by Tommaso Scandola, Le Devisement Du Monde: I viaggi e le avventure di Marco Polo, "Marco Polo è nato a Venezia probabilmente nel 1254 (molti dicono il 15 settembre, ma in realtà non si sa di preciso né la data né il luogo della sua nascita stimata, comunque, tra il 1250 e il 1255)". They consider it may have been, everybody can consider many things that may have been, but that belongs to the realm of subjectivity not neutrality. Every notable scholar book or encyclopedia who profoundly (can even say neutrally) wrote on his biography, like the notable and still relevant work by Paul Pelliot and Arthur Christopher Moule, The description of the world (1938), do not mention anything, not even a single word in regard to the date of 15/09, simply because it was never endorsed by the mainstream scholarship. The same goes to the old work by Henry Yule, The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian (1875).
Everyone note that his birth place and date are archivally unknown. The only neutral and valid compromise is that the date 15/09 would be mentioned in the "Note1" which already mentions the year 1254. Will do that in the sandbox revision. However, you again did not refer to my proposal in your reply, and again did not mention the issues with which can properly edit the revision in my sandbox and upload it.--Crovata (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, let's boil off. You do not have to convince me. I am already convinced. And even just 1254 is not certain, so at fortiori 15/09/1254 is not. I am absolutely aware that most Italian sources do not endorse the 15/09/1254 (this is the reason why the Italian Wikipedia uses for Polo's birthdate around 1254). The question here is another: is it technically possible to treat the claim 15/09/1254 as WP:FRINGE? I have a doubt that we can answer affirmatively to this question. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible. International scholarship books, encyclopedias, and even Italian scholars books, like by the Alvise Zorzi, Vita di Marco Polo veneziano (2000-2006), do not endorse (ie. mention it) and ignore this theory. As it's stated "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and fringe theory (neither majority or minority opinion) differ from more-scientific theory (which is established in explanation of the evidence). By whom, from where and on what basis this date is explained was also asked in the Italian Wikipedia talk page. The Italian Wikipedia was previously edited by me (and every Wikipedia language should be on this matter), it did not had any source for that claim (the often problem of many non-English language Wikipedia), neither that claim (as shown above) can be in the lead, infobox, or main article body (WP:WEIGHT; and better not giving it any credit). However, it can be in the article by mention in "Note1" as is found in certain number of sources.--Crovata (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, you wrote: The Italian Wikipedia was previously edited by me (and every Wikipedia language should be on this matter).... Are you serious? Do you realize what you have just written? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Silvio1973, this is not a warning and there's no last chance before this discussion is rejected from my side. It's over. That was in January, and as explained above according WP:NPOV - there's no valid reason for that date to be included in the article main body, as well this birthdate matter really does not need any and such a long discussion. You're making things impossibly ridiculous thanks to your behaviour (which is explained above). Everything must be explained to you, simply because you don't want to check the reliable sources. Instead of making a positive and constructive reply for the continuation of the discussion, again you go off topic and ignore - there's no word on the "Note1", and again no word on the revision edited in the sandbox and because of which this discussion was started by you. This whole discussion is a total failure. You discredited yourself several time, and don't expect anymore that I discuss with you on such irrelevant matter. I warned you, and you still said nothing about the revision beside infamously calling it disruptive. What disruptive and "step by step" mean to you obviously does not mean the same to me and every other editor. It's just a plain waste of time. I am going to further edit the revision and will upload it here. The next time don't revert other editor edits without explaining where's the issue so that the issue can be properly edited. You're welcome to make any kind of review in the sandbox talk page, there will reply, here not anymore since you cannot be focused on the own discussion topic.--Crovata (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
So, I should understand that on this matter only you can edit on Wikipedia (this is what you wrote above)? Honestly this is not very humble. However, I struggle to understand why we do not get to consensus, because our positions are not so far. We both agree to exclude the 15/09/1254 from the infobox and the lead. The difference is that I want to cite it in the body of the text making clear that a strong doubt exist about the correctness of this birthdate, while you want to put in a note. IMHO relegating this fact to a note it's not fair in view of the sources existing.Silvio1973 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't ascribe something you done to me. Previously with editing without any discussion consensus and approval from my part you showed what consensus mean to you. Only fair according WP:NPOV, as explained above, is to put it into a note - now you argue whether it is fair or not on your own subjective POV. You stuck on such a irrelevant information, ignoring that neither mainstream scholarship neither international encyclopedias endorse or explain it(!). You basically defend and approve giving a weight to a marginal (even fringe) theory (it does not even have features of a theory!) which none primary or secondary source in-depth argue or review(!). You didn't even bring any source for your argument(!). Really, to agree with you is basically breaking own Wikipedia principles. I advise you to make your own Wikipedia and edit it according your own principles. The result according the research and sources is more than clear. Again no word from you on the discussion topic - the revision. This discussion is closed as much I am considered, and read again my last sentence in penultimate reply.--Crovata (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, don't ascribe to me the responsibility that some sources state that Marco Polo born on 15th September 1254. I am the first not to believe it, but Wikipedia works on sources. Certainly the sources claiming he born on 15th September 1254 are a small minority of the total. Indeed I agree to remove any reference to this date in the Infobox and from the lead. But we cannot ignore that a theory about the exact date of Polo's birthdate exist. Indeed, we could ignore them if very reliable sources were stating that there is proven evidence that the 15 September 1254 is invented. Please note that the most reliable scholars say in they book that they suspect of the correctness of that date, not that it is an invention. Well, I think we should do the same.
Some sources (I am very busy these days, I only searched 10 minutes) :
Marco Polo: The Connection with Greek Spirit, Gregory Zorzos - 2009 [[5]]
The Travels of Marco Polo - Complete, Henri Cordier - 2014 [[7]]
What's So Great About Marco Polo?, Sam Rogers - 2013 [[8]]
"Some ... small minority", total ignorance by the mainstream scholarship). You're contradicting yourself and twisting the meaning of the principles. It's not a theory - find me the source which theorize on some evidence and basis that he was born on the date. It does not have any feature of a theory, yet of somekind of a fact. Facts are based on evidence, this does not. They are not the "most reliable scholars" when there exist better authorities and scholars on his life which did not mention that date. The mainstream scholarship did and does not endorse that date (and ignores it), and we should do the same - the end. And as already cited Roger, he says "born in the year 1245 ... Some people think that his birthday may have been September 15 of that year, but the lack of good records makes it hard to double check that date". There's no source to double-check that date - it's invented. Stop pushing this misinformation and answer already in my sandbox talk page.--Crovata (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Listen Crovata, I think we should first reduce the area of our dispute. We both believe that any reference to that date should be removed from the Infobox and the lead. Well, let's do it. The article right now present as mainstream a fact supported only by a limited number of sources. This should be changed as soon as possible. Concerning the reference to the 15/09/1254 currently present in the body of the article, the wording must be also changed. I suggest we open an RfC or request a 3O to solve the issue. I think we need input from other users. This will also bring the additional benefit to dilute our dispute. Cheers, Silvio1973 (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course it should be, however, it won't simply because the current article revision is not the topic of the discussion. You started the discussion not about the current article revision, yet the reverted revision you called disruptive without providing where was the issue. Still waiting for your answer in the sandbox talk page, where it can be reviewed and properly edited (which in the mean time it was). Since 1 February, over 10 days, you did not say a single word about that revision. Stop being such an ignorant and start discussing the topic.--Crovata (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The issue as you call it, is that the current version of this article has been unchanged for quite a while. In view of the difficulties experienced in the past to arrive to a consensual version, it is paramount to discuss each significant change (and birthdate is certainly one). It goes by itself that the discussion need to take place on the talk page of the article because other users do not have your sandbox in their watchlist. Last but not least, I kindly call you to stop coming here calling names (I never called you ignorant, neither I had a disrespectful behavior). Silvio1973 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Again off-topic, loose arguments (it wasn't always the case in the past), washing your hands, and no word on the disruptive revision (which I firstly asked to start discuss here, but still no word from you). Could you just one time instead of wasting energy on writing this useless replies, write something about the revision all this discussion is about and you started? Could you be constructive? I kindly ask you, but almost 2 weeks passed, and still no word about the revision. Do you understand that some things have limits?--Crovata (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I will not start any discussion in your Sandbox. If you want to discuss here you are welcome. And each topic of discussion need to be discussed separately otherwise the discussion will end in an ugly mess. Concerning the birthdate our arguments are clear. The topic has been discussed. At this stage I think we need more users joining the discussion. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Marco Polo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Marco Polo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@Crovata:, the last thing I want to start is an edit war. On the other hand I won't you leave editing the article without discussing first the modifications. Now, can we firstly agree to remove Italian and Croatian sources from the article (this is English Wikipedia)? --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Silvio1973 No, there's no reasonable explanation to remove reliable sources which claims are more than needed on the article. Stop to WP:OWN the article according your own subjective POV. For the 100x time, what's your personal concern?--Crovata (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, first of all check your wording before posting your comments. My concern are (just to cite the main three):
1) You wrote: "His exact date and place of birth is archivally unknown" and you referenced this claim with two Croatian sources. We need English sources here. This is English Wikipedia and I expect that you reference your claims with English sources.
Again with this nonsense, this topic was already discussed, and English Wikipedia does not exclusively need sources in English language, or quality and reliable sources in other languages should be ignored.--Crovata (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
2) You have relegated to the notes the claim that Polo's birthdate is the 15th September 1254. While I also agree that this birthdate is doubtful, in view of the relatively large number of sources it is WP:UNDUE to remove this information from the body of the article.
Same nonsense, it's not removed from the body of article, the main text of the article shows the truth according the primary sources, while that date has none chronology who first considered it, on what basis, nothing what so ever, neither the majority of sources consider it, especially not those who wrote about his biography or encyclopedias.--Crovata (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
3) The first three lines of the section "Family origin" are confusing and written in average English. And actually very badly formatted.
Indeed, finally start to openly discuss what bothers you, come with reasonable ideas and stop to subjectively interfere in the work of others.--Crovata (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, let's proceed progressively. You cannot state that "His exact date and place of birth is archivally unknown" using non-English sources. However, you should have no problem in finding English sources supporting this (alleged) fact, if really it is so mainstream that his exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Silvio1973, sincerely, are you just a troll? Because what are you asking was already pointed and discussed above.--Crovata (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, I sincerely respect your knowledge and competence so please do not speak to me like that. My question is very precise. Can you answer? Silvio1973 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It was already answered, look at any academical and objective source, and in anyone will be "Venice? c. 1254", or that Marco Polo tells nothing about his boyhood between birth and departure from Venice, or that very little is known about his childhood, some will mention several birth places beside Venice, it's something so obvious that what the two reliable sources in Croatian note is nothing controversial to be questioned - they are stating a well known fact.--Crovata (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Listen, it is very simple. If it is so obvious you should have no problem in finding two English sources. Indeed, I don't think it is obvious at all. If you really think that you can solve a contentious issue providing Croatian sources on English Wikipedia, I urge you to open an RfC to see what the other users think. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
What, "I don't think it is obvious at all" - no, you're not a troll, yet one of the editors with most idiotic thinking I stumbled upon. Now you're making me to waste my time again on you're stupid subjectivity and cite from sources which you could find on your own.--Crovata (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Crovata, I could report you to ANI but it is not worth. Indeed I am going to requst a 3O, so we will see if a third user thinks that it is idiotic what I wrote. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
3O Request Greetings, both. Silvio1973 had requested a third opinion on this page. It should be noted that my opinion here should be viewed the same way as that of another editor; I have no special authority in this regard. As to the content dispute: the relevant policy here is WP:NOENG, a subsection of our policy on verifiability. The section makes it quite clear that English sources are not required, only preferable. Content should not be removed simply because it is cited to a non-English source. Of course, the content still has to comply with WP:V and WP:NOR, so if there are any doubts about this, you should ask for a quotation, and perhaps request assistance at Wikipedia:Translators available. That said, the current wording could use improvement, because the details about his birth are spread over a footnote and the next sentence, which reads a little odd. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:, this is exactly my point: the details about his birth are spread over a footnote and the last sentence is odd (to say it nicely). I tried to put the details in the body of the text but my edit was removed. If you go trough the discussion you see that this is exactly the problem I raised. Concerning the two Croatian sources, the issue is not per se the "nationality" of the source but the language. I do not speak Croatian. Also please note that the details of Marco Polo's early life is a subject of discussion between Croatian and Italian scholars. Hence, my request to use exclusively English sources for this specific subject. Indeed, I do not see why Crovata does not bring English sources to support his claim, if this is really so obvious (to use Crovata's words). Well, the thing is that it is not obvious at all. It is true that the details of Marco Polo's early life are still subject of debate, but the sentence "His exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown" is a strong statement and requires precise, large and verifiable sourcing. It is not the case right now. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The request you submitted referred to the language issue, which is quite clear-cut; English sources are not required (WP:NOENG refers to language, not nationality). If English sources are available, then they would be helpful, but they are not necessary; if you wish to verify the source, you need to ask for quotations and help with translation, as I explained above. If multiple sources comment on this issue, and they disagree, then all of the viewpoints they express need to be given due weight, regardless of the language they are written in. I am not going to get into the nitty-gritty of discussing a wording change; but the two issues are quite separate. I suggest you accept the use of the croatian source, and move to discussing the wording. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I would need to understand what the source says to discuss the wording. And I do not speak Croatian. However, the issue is of wider range. The (alleged) source is a PhD thesis. How can be reasonably acceptable that on English Wikipedia a quotation from a Croatian PhD thesis outplaces established English scholars? However, I have added some material and slightly modified the existing text. @Crovata:, I hope the current version can be a basis of discussion. If you really want to write that "His exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown" appropriate sourcing is needed. If the source is not in English (or in a language I speak) you need to provide translation of it. And we need to be sure that the scholar affirming it is relevant enough. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll quote and translate the citation. Oh my..., it does not outplace established considerations by English and international scholars - it supports the mainstream scholarship fact. The debate between Croatia and Italy on ethnicity of Marco Polo has nothing to do with it. I have nothing else to say which was not already pointed out above, and as such accept the modified text only because to cut off overly-ridiculous discussion. --Crovata (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It does, because you put in the notes published books from English scholars and in the body of the text a Croatian Phd. Also, how can you claim that your source is neutral when it states "... while our historical science claims the place of his birth island Korčula"? If it is really so obvious, why don't you find something of more decent? Silvio1973 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
"Decent" (whose talking ), if you could just stop over-thinking ahead and check before both the article references and source itself...? It is neutral and because it is comprehensive it must state the "general" POV of both Italian and Croatian historiography. However, in it strongly disputes the Korčula thesis as it is not supported by any historical document from Marco Polo's lifetime.--Crovata (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Why are you so keen in using a PhD thesis instead of looking for proper published sources? Is a friend of yours who published this thesis? :) Silvio1973 (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Because is reliable and informative...? Are you becoming more idiotic with each useless reply, or it is only an impression?--Crovata (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Guys, this is not going well. May I remind you to be civil and stop calling names. Why don't you just plainly state what you want to have in the article without tens of edits that are going in circles? And please decide on that on the talkpage, you are disrupting the article. --Tone09:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Tone, but I think I lost my patience with Silvio1973 and his infinite-indefinite way of discussing from the very beginning on 1 February.--Crovata (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly Tone, I do not want that on English Wikipedia a PhD thesis in Croatian is used to sustain the affirmation "His exact date and place of birth is archivally unknown". If this fact is really so mainstream - to use Crovata's words - I urge him to provide a reliable source, such as a published well-known scholar, possibly English-writing. Also, please note that Crovata called my posts and attitude "idiotic". Conversely, I have been civil since the beginning. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Reverting, not explaining your actions, calling other editor revision as disruptive, endless and useless discussion on one and the same point, pushing info on date of birth for which there's no exact origin in sources and until now none encyclopedia or respectable source and scholar endorsed, which is against NPOV principles, and again could not back up with sources which in the same way demand from me, is not "civil", is wasting someone else time and against common sense - to put it politely. I already answered you, you have your own brain and hands to search, if you cannot understand the topic, don't want anyhow to contribute to the article and discussion with sources and cites, then it's not my fault.--Crovata (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks we go in circles here. Crovata, the article for me it was fine as it was. If you want to modify it, the burden of the sourcing is yours. I have not reverted your last modifications, but I urge you to provide reliable (English preferably) published scholars. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
A See Also Link a United States city named after the Merchant
In the beginning of the article states that he was Venetian merchant traveler and there are two reliable sources. Why are at the bottom of this page categories in which states that he was Italian, and why would he even be Italian?
Italy didn't exist at that time, and present-day place of birth doesn't make you Italian. The same would be to say that Mahatma Ghandi was British because he was bor in the British Empire, or to day that is Diocletian Croatian because he was born in modern-day Croatia. I am suggesting to remove ridiculous categories in which states that he was Italian just because he was born in modern-day Italy. --46.188.177.44 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hzh has made around 170 consecutive edits on the article, making de facto any return to the article as it was before impossible. Does it bother anyone else than just me? I am posting an ANI. We had, after long and laborious discussion, finally found a stable version for this article but an editor arrives and changes it with over 170 consecutive edits... Silvio1973 (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you should understand the number of edits is entirely irrelevant. All the edits are sourced, I in fact corrected a number of edits which appear to be unsourced opinions. It is not disruptive to simply added source content and correcting. It is in fact very easy to return to an earlier state. If you have an issue with the content, then discuss it first, and you should not issue an ANI without discussing first. Do let me know which bits you find problematic. Hzh (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Listen, you cannot post 170 consecutive edits without discussing first. This is simply insane. I do not contest all of your edit, but some of them. The thing is that you need to edit at a pace that is consistent with the capability of your fellow editors to discuss. Please return he article to its condition and I will remove the post on the ANI. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really sure on what guidelines you are basing your complaint on. There is really no such rules on pace or number of edits. Adding content by itself is not an issue whatever the number of edits, the issue is whether you object to the content itself. Therefore if you object to the content, then by all means change them, or discuss them. If you revert to the state before I edited them, then you are also reintroducing errors and unsourced opinions I corrected. I would therefore ask that you list the things you have issues with, then we can proceed, and see how best to adjust the edits. Hzh (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think I will have the strength to go trough 170 consecutive edits. This is just an excellent example of how one can use rules to have things his way. However it's legal, so I accept it. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Making a hundred consecutive edits is discouraged, as it clogs up the page's history and makes it harder for other editors to see what's been changed - even moreso when those changes lack edit summaries. If you're correcting errors, it's helpful to tell the rest of us that the errors were there, so that anybody who wants to double-check this can do so. --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the same but 3 administrators told me it's absolutely normal (indeed one said it's utterly normal), hence I have no option but to adapt. Indeed what I will do it's to move away from the article. I am human and I do not have the ability to follow 170 consecutive edits. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It is not necessary to follow 170 edits. I added and rearranged some content. To make it easier for you to understand what I did, I expanded the subsection on "Debate" into its own section, and replaced it with the "Authenticity and veracity" subsection. Most other parts I did not touch, for example I merely rearranged to create a subsection on "Role of Rustichello" (I don't think I added anything else to that). It doesn't take long to read those sections I actually added content on. Hzh (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
For an example or unsourced and inaccurate claim in the original text before I edited, this entire part was either inaccurate or not found in the source stated -
Morgan argued that Polo as a mere Venetian merchant would not have been considered an important person in the Mongol Empire, so his omission is not surprising, especially if one considers that the bridal entourage numbered in the hundreds.[83] Moreover, Rashid-al-Din had a strong dislike of "Franks" (in the medieval Middle East, Muslims called Western Europe "Frankstan" and all Western Europeans were "Franks"), having almost nothing positive to say about them in the Jami' al-tawarikh, and so he may have omitted that "Franks" were given the honour of being members of the bridal party.[83] Morgan maintained that since this marriage between a member of the Yuan dynasty of China and their cousins, the Īl-khāns of Persia was known only in Asia that the only way that a European like Polo would had known of it would have been if he been in Asia.
Not done: as you have not requested a change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Strong sentence to source
@Hzh, the sentence "Since the book publication, many have viewed the book with skepticism" requires sourcing (as many other of your recent modifications, and BTW I think in good faith this is your modification, I cannot even be sure because it's very difficult now to navigate through the different versions). I guess you realize that using the word "many" requires a lot of caution. I would welcome if you would put the article in the condition before your various modifications, aggregated the most relevant and posted them one by one. I am really afraid that we have lost a stable version to get in an instable one. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
PS I read a lot about Marco Polo and I think the book is not genuine, but what I think it's not relevant. I am not a source. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The source comes after the second sentence. I'm not sure you need a reference after every sentence (the source usually would be the earliest citation you next see), but I'll add that if you want it there. Since I have already pointed out in fact that some of the content I removed is actually not supported by source and erroneous, you are asking me to restore content that is not properly sourced and possibly false. We should be careful about attributing arguments and words to a person, especially when the source given does not say what it is claimed to say. Hzh (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm also not sure what you mean by a stable version, I don't see one. From the beginning of this year until just before I made my edits, there has been an increase of over 20kB in content, so there have been quite a bit of changes in this year already. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's try to move this thing forward. Is the sentence "Since the book publication, many have viewed the book with skepticism" sourced? In which source? Where? Hzh, it's a strong statement, I hope you agree we need to be bomb-proof before posting it. To say that "Since the book publication many viewed the book with skepticism" you should prove how many scholars doubted of the book since the XIII century. And also skepticism is unclear. Skepticism about the content or about Marco Polo's journey to China? Silvio1973 (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I've already placed the source there, it mentioned for example people like D. Hullmann, Herbert Franke, Craig Clunas and Frances Wood in the modern period, and how some people in the middle ages viewed it as a romance (scholarship on the book only come later). The Haw book also mentioned how just before Polo died, he was asked to retract his story, therefore you can tell that there were people who didn't believe him even in his own life time. I can add that part in if you think that is worth mentioning.
Another thing that I should say is that because some of the edits that have been there for some time appear not to have been checked, I might check a few of these things as well later just to make sure that they are OK. Hzh (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment
I'm posting here after seeing Silvio1973's thread at ANI, which has been closed as a content dispute. Hzh, you need to use an edit summary for every one of your edits, explaining exactly what you did and why. Silvio1973, if you'd like assistance, post a neutrally worded request at the relevant active WikiProjects, and ask for extra eyes, analysis, etc. Softlavender (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Softlavender No problem with asking for other editors' contributions, in fact it would help with some issues that need addressing in the article. For example, I found incorrectly sourced content that have been left unchecked for some time, but attributed to a scholar. This is very wrong as it could be a personal opinion or original research falsely attributed as the opinion of a known academic. I had planned to go over the sources, but if there are people who can also check the sources then it would certainly help. I should also note that the closer of the ANI doubted if it was even a content dispute and should not have been raised at ANI. Hzh (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Softlavander I really do not know what to do. I am reading Hzh's edit one by one but it's a big job. Il will take a week. I assume good faith, but honestly Hzh you make the life of your fellow editors very difficult. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I have already explained which sections are my contribution and that I did not touch the rest, and you can read those sections in 10-15 minutes. I have also explained that everything is sourced, so if there are sentences you need clarifying, then it is easy to check the source. I'm frankly puzzled why you think it takes a week. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, believe it or not, it is not easy to navigate through so many changes. Two comments so far:
IMHO you give undue weight to Ronald Latham's opinion. He might be actually right but the meanstream considers Il Milione a work of Marco Polo. In a nutshell if you want his opinion taking so much place in the article you need to add additional source or perhaps reduce to a more reasonable size Latham's opinion.
"Since the book publication, many have viewed the book with skepticism" it's a strong sentence because you need to evaluate many as opposed to a countable number. I would recommend to replace "many" with "some". Silvio1973 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I did not add anything by Latham, that has been there for more than a year. I have already told you that I did not add anything on that section apart adding a subsection title. I plan to check the book later to see if what's written is correct. However, I think not over-representing the opinion of any particular scholar is a good idea, and I will see if I can do that with Haw, Wood and Morgan.
It's true, you did not change anything. This is the problem when someone posts so many consecutive edits without giving the time to the others to follow. It's difficult to follow now. However, I am going through all edits and I can affirm I do not have big problems with most of them. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Silvio1973: I must say I'm feeling a bit exasperated now. I have already specified which sections I added content on, which section I did not, you cannot say you can't follow what is done. That is particularly so when you want to revert to a state where the content you complained about already existed for over a year, that means you have a year to follow the edits! I don't have great attachment to what I added, if you feel strongly about reverting to the previous state, then you can, but just remember what I said about problematic content. If you want to know how to revert to an older state, just go an older version, then click edit and save that version. Hzh (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016
In The Book of Marvels, Polo claimed that he was a close friend and advisor to Kublai Khan and that he was the governor of the city of Yangzhou for three years – yet no Chinese source mentions him as either a friend of the Emperor or as the governor of Yangzhou – indeed no Chinese source mentions Polo at all.
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Followed by:
According to the first printed edition (Nuremberg 1477) Marco Polo worked as an ordinary officer in the service of the governor of Mangi. („Ich Marcho polo von meynß hernn des grossen Chams wegen/ pey dem verweser und haubtman des lands Mangi drey gancze iar was.“)
Please note that it is already explained in the following paragraph that there were contradictory information in different versions of the book. Therefore should be added in that paragraph if this is to be done. Also the first version is French, so what's so special about the German one? Hzh (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The German version (as the Italian and the Latin versions a translation from an unknown source) is the only one which states clearly that Marco Polo was an official in the service of the governor.
I would suggest to add to Assessments (following note 110):
Marco Polo, according to the sinologist Ulrich Neininger[5] became friends with Zufficar, an official in the Imperial Bureau of Mines. Zufficar, who must have been impressed by the scientific talent of the young manCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). According to Ramusio’s edition, he served there as governor. However an earlier German edition states clearly: “I, Marco Polo, ordered by my master, the great Khan, was three years in the service of the governor and captain of the land Mangi.” Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Secondly, there was the influence of Rustichello who needed for his text a glorious knight in Kublai Khan’s services and by no means a middle level civil servant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Termolen (talk • contribs) 09:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
^Ulrich Neininger, The Legend of the Venetian Knight-Errant at the Court of Kublai Khan, and the True Story of the Busy Official Marco Polo, how he Grew Rich in China and what he Kept Secret from his Readers, http://ulrichneininger.de/?p=2532)
I have just modified 2 external links on Marco Polo. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Marco Polo, now 17 years old, his father and uncle went to China.this was after his mother died and then he brought up by his uncle, and then they went both on adventures. They all sailed to Acre (now Akko), a port in Palestine. The reason for their stop, was because the Polos didn't think the ships at the port were fit to ride on the ocean. After they got off the boat, they rode camels crossing the deserts and mountains in Asia, until, after about three years, they reached their destination; Kublai Khan's summer palace, in Shangdu (or Shang-tu), near the present day Kalgan. The Khan welcomed the Polos very greatly.
Kublai Khan appreciated the Polo's experience, and knowledge. Marco knew four different languages, and the Khan sent Marco on many tours around the kingdom. These tours lead Marco from China's southern and eastern provinces, and as well as far south as Burma. Marco became a government official in a Chinese city; Yangzhou (also spelled Yang-chou) for three years.
Time passed, and Peublai Khan disagreed with the Polos leaving China. Marco, and his family, started worrying about safely returning home, because believed that if Kublai Khan were to die before they left China, his enemies might capture them, because they are always involved with Kublai. In 1292, Khan's great-nephew, Persia's Mongol ruler, sent representatives to China to bring him a bride. The representatives asked if the Polos wanted to come with them on their return to Persia. The Polos agreed, knowing that this was their chance to "escape". Kublai Khan finally agreed. The same year, the Polos, with a fleet of 14 junks, sailed from Zaitun, (or Quanzhou, also spelled Ch'uan-chou), to a port in southern China.
The feet sailed to present day Singapore. From there, they traveled toward the north of Sumatra, around the southern tip of India, and they crossed the Arabian Sea to Hormuz. There, Marco, and his family, left the wedding party and traveled to the Turkish port of Trebizond (present day Trabzon). The Polos sailed to Constantinople and then, finally, to Venice, about 24 years after the journey began! Their journey round trip probably totaled nearly 15,000 miles (24,100 kilometers).
↑ This info should be merged with the Journey To Cathay and service to the Khan. cite source: "The World Book Encyclopedia", (c) 2004, pub. World Book Inc, Chicago. ISBN0-7166-0104-4. Book "P" - Volume 15. Pages 648-649.↑
etymology - Latin Paulus, "derived from a certain bird species"??
Whoever wrote that must be having a laugh. If, as appears most likely, the surname Polo is derived from the Latin name Paulus (which seems reasonable given that his name is given in Latin as "Marcus Paulus), then the name has nothing to do with a bird species, but simply means "small, humble" in Latin...as clicking on the link in the article will reveal.
Jacob D (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Jacob D
Italian is not a modern word
Italian is not a modern word (see on Christopher Columbus talk page), as Italia was the name of the Italian Peninsula during the Roman era. So Marco Polo was Italian, not Venetian. -- Howard "Dib" Montjio, September 30, 2017
Well, he was Venetian by virtue of being a citizen of the Republic of Venice, but him also being Italian by virtue of culture (and geographical location) is not mutually exclusive to the former political identity. And yes, people referred to people from the Italian peninsula as Italians long before the 19th-century political unification of the country, i.e. the Risorgimento. To be honest, the article should mention that he is a Venetian first and foremost and, if it is in a proper context, an Italian. Pericles of AthensTalk21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
add Pryor
Pryor in 2005 points out that MP's itinary coinincides with the actual monsoon cycle, that would force the interruptions which MP made at the time. MP did neither had knowledge of those monsoon cycles nor mentions them. [1]
^John H. Pryor: Marco Polo's return voyage from China: Its implication for 'The Marco Polo debate'. In: Geraldine Barnes, Gabrielle Singleton: Travel and Travellers from Bede to Dampier. Cambridge 2005, S. 125–157, hier: S. 148–157, Kapitel „The return voyage“
Reference? We discussed this extensively so unless you have some new breakthrough sources, I'd leave it as it is. --Tone13:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
spaghetti?
In Grade school we were taught spaghetti came to Italy via Marco Polo from China. I heard differently later on. No mention of spaghetti is found in the current Marco Polo article, and no mention of Marco Polo is mentioned in the spaghetti article, nor is China. At least a casual mention ought to be made, I think, since such a belief is so prevalent. Misty MH (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Good question. I'm afraid that the spaghetti connection has been disproven, but mention could be made to satisfy reasonable questions, such as from Misty MH. Here's a GOOGLE SEARCH for the popular references, but the only article I can lay my hands on at the moment is Blue, Gregory (1991). "Marco Polo Et Les Pâtes". Médiévales: 91–98.. It's in French, but the text is online for free.ch (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
all the info was very well put together based on the false history of marco polo. .but are you aware they discovered he stole his writing from other people that had written accounts of what they had done or witnessed? he simply wrote in his name and had the world believing him for centuries.i know i wasnt very prepared on my sources here but it would be a simple matter for you to type in marco polo a fraud? to see the info the history channel put together Niteowl4u (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Lol. This is a laughable request. In the "debate" section, the article already recounts the various scholars who concur that Marco Polo's work was an authentic one and includes input from the oddball academics who disagree for whatever reason. To be frank about it, Mark Elvin, Stephen G. Haw, and Igor de Rachewiltz pretty much destroy the arguments of the naysayers, as thoroughly explained in the article with citations. --Pericles of AthensTalk22:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Several other small issues exist that Americans may have missed. For example, UK punctuation will be on the outside of quotes. I'm not supporting one or the other but consistency is a good thing. When reading the page I came across a few US punctuations. The only one I can recall of the top is with a quote from Peter Jackson derriding some other author. A short proofread by someone capable of editing would be nice.
Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Is the English translation really 50% longer than versions in other languages ?
I honestly couldn't understand all the skepticism I read about The Travels of Marco Polo in the English-speaking world, until I came across this sentence! The English translation must be really full of "crap"... this is why Igor de Rachewiltz had to recall that whenever Marco Polo was accused of bragging, much of the statements he is accused of are not present in the early manuscripts[1][2] . This should be written somewhere --S.vecchiato (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
References
^Marco Polo Went to China, in «Zentralasiatische Studien», vol. 27, 1997, pp. 34-92
The Family Origin section concludes with "The lack of evidence makes the Korčula theory (probably under Ramusio influence) as a specific birthplace strongly disputed, and even some Croatian scholars consider it merely invented." The citation for the end of that sentence is to a 2013 article by Olga Orlić titled "The curious case of Marco Polo from Korčula: An example of invented tradition". However, the cited article is by just one scholar (not plural scholars) and it clearly takes no position on the true birthplace of Marco Polo. The author explains, "I will not engage in the debate over Marco Polo’s 'true' place of origin because it is not crucial to the purpose of this paper." Instead, Orlić examines contemporary residents' opinions on the topic. The author analyzes interviews with 107 contemporary residents of Korčula regarding Marco Polo's birthplace, and discusses their opinions "in the framework of the concept of invented tradition". The article does not state that the Korčula theory of Marco Polo's birthplace is false or invented. On the contrary, Orlić expressly takes no position on where Marco Polo originated. 173.3.227.14 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
That is in part true. But at the end of the paper, Orlìc makes the point that the Croatian hypothesis is either "theft of heritage" or ,if it's true, "its truthfulness has yet to be proven". In any case, 99% of scholars and encyclopedias stick with Venice. This alternative theory should be mentioned but it shouldn't carry the same weight as the Venetian origins. Barjimoa (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Remove “epic” to ensure a neutral point of view
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
On the second paragraph, after stating Marco Polo’s father returned from his exchange journey and met Marco for the first time, Marco then ventures into his first exchange journey along with his father etc.
This journey is described as “epic” on the article in a sense of heroism or greatness imposing an opinion of how the journey was, thus lacking informational seriousness. My suggestion is to remove the word “epic” to ensure neutrality and prevent biased information. 88.14.20.170 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the text in the lead describing Marco Polo as Italian merchant be changed from "Marco Polo was an Italian merchant" to "Marco Polo was an Venetian merchant"?Mikola22 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Considering that Marco Polo is part of Republic of Venice and that he lived in time of Republic of Venice I think that Marco Polo was an Venetian merchant. Given that facts on wikipedia must be apply everywhere equally my opinion is the only possible answer in this Rfc. [1]Mikola22 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This must be officially clarified, talking to various editors on talk page I think makes no sense because this information has mostly changed. He was Venetian, now he is Italian, he was probably and Croatian so it is time to finally clarify that. Maybe someone has discussed it but we see that situation is as it is. Mikola22 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The bulk of sources I was able to find cite him as a Venetian merchant. The country of Italy did not yet exist in the thirteenth century. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the mentioned change will be helpful. In the meanwhile, Mikola22 stated true, as he remarked: "Considering that Marco Polo is part of Republic of Venice and that he lived in time of Republic of Venice I think that Marco Polo was an Venetian merchant." Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, calling him "Italian" was an anachronism as we cannot verify that the concept existed in something resembling its modern form during his time, in addition to matters inherent in WP:NATIONALITY. "Venetian" is simply accurate on the other hand. --Calthinus (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Full disclosure: I followed Mikola here, but I think my point stands nonetheless --Calthinus (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Altaic Language
Under the allegations of exaggeration section there is a parenthetical insertion regarding the Altaic language, which itself is a hypothesized (considered debunked) language family. This insertion is cited, but considered incorrect by the vast consensus of linguistic scholars. Perhaps it should be corrected.
Language/Grammar
"Pietro d'Abano philosopher, doctor and astrologer based in Padua, reports having spoken with Marco Polo about what he had observed in the vault of the sky during his travels. Marco told him that during his return trip to the South China Sea, he had spotted what he describes in a drawing as a star "shaped like a sack" (in Latin: ut sacco) with a big tail (magna habens caudam), most likely a comet. Astronomers agree that there were no comets sighted in Europe at the end of 1200, but there are records about a comet sighted in China and Indonesia in 1293."
"The vault of the sky" is not a known phrase in English. Try just using "in the sky".
I think "at the end of 1200" should be "at the end of the 1200's" or "at the end of the 13th century CE". MP wasn't yet born "at the end of 1200".
"In 1305 he is mentioned in a Venetian document among local sea captains regarding the payment of taxes.[27] His relation with a certain Marco Polo, who in 1300 was mentioned with riots against the aristocratic government,..."
--It's not clear who each sentence is referring to.
Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Dear Wikipedia Team
I would like to request your help in adding a listing and its web link to the "External Links" section in this entry on Marco Polo. The listing and link are for a YouTube film produced by Glasgow Museums that what Marco Polo would have encountered by way of material culture on his journey east. This material culture is exemplified by museum objects from the various lands Polo passed through and which form part of Glasgow Museums' collections.
The title of the film is "Marco Polo’s Orient: A response from Glasgow Museums’ collection to Fiona Tan: Disorient", and the web link is <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnrShbZa-DA>.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours faithfully
Dr. Noorah Al-Gailani
Curator of Islamic Civilisations
Glasgow Museums - The Burrell Collection (Redacted)
This article shall be a credible biography. Therefore, and per
A scientific paper edited in 2013 states that "the story of the Korčulan origin of Marco Polo and/or his family can be approached as pure falsification or even as a theft of heritage... ".[105]
all hearsays about his Croatian lineage/birthplace shall not be a part of this article. Please, remove the Birthplace controversy text.--178.222.163.66 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
According to some Croatian sources, the exact date and place of birth are "archivally"[clarification needed] unknown.[99][16] The same sources also claimed Constantinople[100][16] and the island of Curzola (today Korčula, in Croatia) as his possible birthplace.[101][16][102] The lack of evidence makes the Curzola/Korčula theory (probably under Ramusio influence)[103] as a specific birthplace strongly disputed.[104] A scientific paper edited in 2013 states that "the story of the Korčulan origin of Marco Polo and/or his family can be approached as pure falsification or even as a theft of heritage... ".[105]
Change the final quote to a longer quote from the article which gives more context:"The story of the Korčulan origin of Marco Polo and/or his family can be approached as pure falsification or even as a theft of heritage; as a true fact, the truthfulness of which has yet to be proven... Because the name Marco Polo is verifiably associated with the 1298 naval battle near the island, the combination of historically proven fact and anecdotal evidence of his Korčulan origins creates an efficient means of promoting local tourism." 2604:2000:1281:9861:7839:AB8A:E241:26CC (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Marco Polo has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the second paragraph, ninth sentence, change: "At this time, Venice was at war with Genoa; Marco was imprisoned and dictated his stories to Rustichello da Pisa, a cellmate." to "At this time, Venice was at war with Genoa; Marco was captured and imprisoned by the Genoans after joining the war effort and dictated his stories to Rustichello da Pisa, a cellmate."
As currently written, it is ambiguous and could make people think he was imprisoned by Venetians for some reason. SecASB (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Map of Marco Polo's Travels: Issues of Information on the Map Related Sri Lanka
This map is erroneously shown Sri Lanka as a part of South Indian Pandyan Kindom at the time of Marco Polo which is false and completely omitted Polo's two visits to Sri Lanka: (1) the first in 1284 as official representative of Kublai Khan to buy Buddha's tooth and begging bowl and (2) the second in 1293 on his journey home to Venice.[1][2][3][4][5]Lipwe (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
the history.com source is no longer available but it's archived in archive.org, i suppose someone with permission could update it and mention that the "ship map" could be a forgery, as the parchment is dated from the 15th to 16th centuries (could still be legitimate as a copy, but ink hasn't been dated, could've been added later after the discovery) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.36.44.22 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Did He Get There?
Did He Get There? Direct from a University Professor who says he is definitive on this point when asked the above question: I read all 3 or 4 complete! records from the Emperor, and two warlords: there is no mention of him. No mention of such a type of foreigner. Professor also stated: Polo stated he was put in command of 2 or 3 large armies (50,000+) one time under one of these warlords no less. Not mentioned. Political suicide for Emperor: to put a foreigner! (in China!) in charge of such massive numbers of troops (three times!). Professor stated he lost all validity of Polo's claim on this point alone: great claims must be backed up. Note: the course was Politics in China 1900 - 1950. Professor said he was not obliged to answer, claiming a total expert on the Polo era's records however, chose to answer. He was also asked if Polo got to India. Stated: not an expert on India, do not know. ItsACityOfApes (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I postulated a working theory to incorporate the above as I pursued my own study: He was robbed on the way to China, could not go back to Europe due to jail threat. Stayed for a while maybe at caravansaries employed somehow. Telling stories? What would such foreigners do? Check the etymology of the words and places/ names (they come from a defined area). He leaves Asia. Is put in jail Europe. Tells fantastic campfire story. ItsACityOfApes (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
request to revert Mikola22's edit back to the original wording
Mikola is really concerned with whether the lead describes MP as "Italian or "Venetian" and seems to think "Italian" is an anachronism. He's insistent on replacing the wording "Marco Polo was an Italian merchant and explorer from the Republic of Venice" with "Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant, explorer and writer", and has defended his edit by citing the Rfc he started to get this wording changed.
The problem with this Rfc is that it attracted a number of editors who were as ignorant of the subject as he is: they cited "anachronism" as the reason for supporting his proposition. As I've shown upthread, "Italian" isn't anachronistic at any point over the last 2000 years: it was used in Roman imperial times, remained in use throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, and is the oldest surviving ethnicity in Europe.[9]
This strange little quirk also manifested on the Christopher Columbus article, where editors tried disputing the historical nature of "Italian" and tried getting the lead changed to "Genoese". But a much larger consensus quite wisely emerged from the other direction, with a little help from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa." [10]
Since there's nothing "anachronistic" about "Italian", what's the other rationale for changing the wording? Sources have been produced describing MP as either an "Italian explorer" or a descendant of an "Italian merchant family" (see p. 87[11]), and Polo's historical impact profoundly impacted Italy beyond the Republic of Venice. His Travels influenced Italian literature for many centuries, later Italian explorers like Columbus, and produced many myths that have since entered Italian folklore [12]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
No, I am probably going to present this to the RS noticeboard and see what they say, and then might RfC it.
Let me be clear right now: I have no personal opinion on whether MP's described as "Italian", "Venetian" or both (they're all accurate depending on context). I am concerned with the reasoning that was used to make this change and want a better explanation. If the argument is that "Italian" is anachronistic in the 13th Century, that's false and has been shown to be false. If the argument is that no reliable sources describe him as "Italian", that's also false and was shown as much. If the argument is that the sources describing him as "Venetian" are consciously using this term to avoid "Italian", there isn't any evidence this is the case. I can produce sources using "Italian" to describe Polo, Polo's family ("Italian merchants", see above) and the Republic of Venice in the 13th Century (an "Italian city-state"[13]) -the terms are compatible, not oppositional.
If someone can offer a reasonable explanation for making this change that's historically sound and consistent with reliable sources, I'll support the edit and go about my merry way. But falling short of that, I can't stand when editors manipulate the rules to push biased edits that have little or no effect on the quality and reliability of an article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
At the end of the article there is a statement about Marco Polo's "last living descendent." Is it really possible that we know he has only one descendent alive today? Both sources simply make this statement with no evidence. Should this be changed to "last known living descendent"? Qwertyu2244 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
As Marco Polo did not have a son, there exist many Polo families and as passed over 700 years it is probably impossible to genealogically trace correctly as well already after 7 generations share of DNA is less than 1% so this information is pointless and useless.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Marco Polo: A Italian
Yeah, Venetians are Italians but, Marco Polo, by many books, for example; H, Pirenne; "Social and Economic History of the Middle Ages" refers Marco Polo as a Venetian, also, between 1200-1400, Italy was not unified, and Venice was an Indepent state, and also, one of the most influential states in Europe and minor Asia, if we talk about trade and economy, so I think we should write "Venetian" instead of "Italian" Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This nitpick comes up many, many times and the answer is usually that, while Italy wasn't a state until the 1860s, people from the peninsula had been identifying as "Italian" since Roman times (at least since the imperial period) and thus people from Venice (founded by Roman descendants escaping Lombard invasions) had a strong sense of being both "Italian" and "Venetian". And this article makes it very clear that Polo was "Italian" from "the Republic of Venice" which are both factual statements. If this article has problems, this isn't one of them. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
What's this eccentric fixation on Italian vs Venetian all about? This is a false distinction -he was both. Just Google "Marco Polo Italian explorer" and you'll find endless sources describing him as an "Italian explorer from the Republic of Venice" exactly what this article used to say before you meddled with it.
Revert the edit. Your strange obsession with this fake distinction isn't improving the article and your edit isn't even in proper English. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jonathan f1: My strange obsession and fake distinction has nothing to do with it. The information that he is Venetian is from the sources which are present. Also such formulation is decided on Rfc where decision was made in the consensus of the editors and the administrator's conclusion: The consensus is clear that the description in the lead paragraph should be changed. Mikola22 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Marco Polo was both a Venetian and Italian, but usage of the term Italian is anachronism because Italian nation in modern sense and Italy as a country did not exist at the time. Same thing plagues many other personalities in Europe who were born before the 19th century nation-building. At the time existed Republic of Venice and he was a citizen-countryman of that city-country. However, saying that Marco Polo was a "Venetian" or "Italian from the Republic of Venice" is basically the same thing because Venetian is a sub-ethnic category of Italian and one upon many synonyms for Italian. Italian encyclopedias and dictionaries published by the official institute of Treccani introduce him as "Viaggiatore veneziano" ([15]), "veneziano" [16], "Viaggiatore veneziano" ([17]), "Viaggiatore veneziano"([18]) and so on. Also, just to be noted considering the cited reliable sources, the family's possible Dalmatian origin does not imply he was not a Venetian/Italian because coastal and insular Dalmatia was strongly influenced and controlled by the Republic of Venice as well as the population in the cities was most often ethnically/linguistically composed by Italian or Italianized people.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The edit was unnecessary. Now the lead in broken English doesn't state what he was ethnically/nationally although there's a strong mainstream point that he was a Venetian, an Italian. Considering the previous RfC, only thing which should have been replaced is "Italian" with "Venetian" but it is redundant saying he was a "Venetian from the Republic of Venice" and makes more sense saying "Italian from the Republic of Venice" because the Republic of Venice does not exist anymore and implies he was a Venetian.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Is this edit unnecessary or not has nothing to do with the editor's opinion given on Rfc. There, it was decided by consensus that the sources will be respected and the fact that in these sources Marco Polo is mentioned as a merchant of Venice or Venetian merchant. In that context Venetian merchant fact does not say anything about his ethnicity but only emphasizes that he is a Venetian merchant. Mikola22 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Marco Polo was not of Venetian/Italian ethnicity or was of any other ethnicity apart of Venetian/Italian nevertheless the location of his birthplace. According to the vast majority of reliable sources he was a Venetian/Italian in every sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Venetian/Italian ethnicity was not a question on Rfc. The question was whether Polo was an Italian or a Venetian merchant, and in that sense this information had to respect rules of Wikipedia as well as the sources. As for the ethnicity itself, it is evident from the article that there are several options where he was born and which is his possible origin. Certainly is not Italian. Mikola22 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Not every single word on here needs to be sourced. You are creating a controversy out of something where none exists; none of those sources you cite would dispute he was Italian -they're just using the word "Venetian" out of convenience. Calling him "Italian" is as controversial as calling him a "male human" -it is self-evident.
Here's a source describing Polo as "a member of an Italian merchant family". (p. 87 [19])
And a 2015 edition of The Travels of Marco Polo describing him as "an Italian merchant from Venice".[20]
@Jonathan f1, I've made a bold edit in the lead with "Venetian" - so that we have at least something in the lead and seems there's community consensus about its neutrality. As the term Venetian is a synonym with Italian and in the categories he is also under Venetians a new RfC is not necessary per se. The reasoning for the previous RfC is that the Italian identity is anachronism, but anachronism means identification of Venetian=Italian which makes Marco Polo a Venetian/Italian automatically. Considering the details, think that more accurate is saying "Venetian" than "Italian". You can always discuss, call a RfC or dispute resolution. @Mikola22, Marco Polo is certainly ethnically Italian and that's strong mainstream viewpoint in liteature. The family's possible Dalmatian origin does not imply their or Marco Polo's non-Italian ethnicity. That's not the dispute between Italy and Croatia - it is only about the birthplace. The far-fetched theory about the origin from Korčula also does not imply, at least not always, his non-Italian ethnicity. His presumable Croatian ethnicity or origin is a low quality fringe theory and assumptions without any evidence at best.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I opened another talk section up. No, you are wrong, it is not an "anachronism" and you'd be wise to browse some of the sources I've been citing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Those sources aren't examining his ethnicity -they're using "Venetian" as a shorthand for "Italian from the Republic of Venice", not because they don't think he was Italian. There are plenty of sources using both "Italian" and "Venetian" interchangeably (just google these terms and pick whatever RS you're okay with).
And what's this argument about Italy "not existing" before the 1860s all about? Do you honestly believe it's standard practice on this encyclopedia to avoid using ethnic labels on people who didn't live in a modern state? We have articles describing people as "German" before Germany existed, articles describing people as "Irish" hundreds of years before Ireland existed. Why do you suppose this obscure standard of yours should apply only to Italy? Do you not think anyone used the word "Italian" before 1860? It's a 2000 year old ethnicity:
"In the first centuries of the Roman Empire, the various ethnic groups that made up Italy coalesced into one singular Italian identity."[21]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Why say "Venetian from the Republic of Venice"? It's redundant and awkward vs. the totally uncontroversial and smoother-flowing "Italian from the Republic of Venice." This was the original wording and I'm still not understanding what the rationale is that renders this phrasing problematic. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Isn’t it against Wikipedia policy to have ethnicity in the subject’s article lead? That’s what I have been told before. So stating Italian when Italy as a state was not yet compiled would mean stating his ethnicity, that is if that was an ethnic identity of the era, regardless, Venetian would make sense I think. Unless his ethnicity is what make him notable. What do the sources mainly say? OyMosby (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Read the new talk section I opened. "Italian" was in use to describe the natives of the peninsula since late antiquity. This is backed by sources that address the argument from "anachronism" (it's false), and also found in Polo literature where terms like "Italian" and "Venetian" are used interchangeably. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That isn’t addressing my question I don’t think. Wikipedia policy is against stating ethnicity in the lead. Are you stating Italian as both his nationality and ethnicity or just ethnicity? I’ve seen admins remove ethnicity from the lead due to the policy. But there are exceptions case by case. OyMosby (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a false (some number)-chotomy going on here. Let's see:
Nationality – Non-starter. There is no whiff of the concept of an Italian nation as such in the High Middle Ages.
Ethnicity – Eh? Yes and no? But rightly banned from the infobox.
Simple Language – Italian did not exist as one language at this time.
Simple Locality – This is what I think Jonathan has been loosely grasping at, and yes, "Italy" remained a coherent geographical region throughout our era, and people from that region remained being called Italians. But does that matter? We don't call people Mediterranean in their lead, even though it would make sense to.
The word Italian has been known and meant anyone from the Italian Peninsula since Antiquity. You can look it up if you don't believe me. 90.195.179.57 (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Then you should head over to the bios of every famous "Italian" pre-1860 and try to get their descriptions changed. Columbus is described as Italian, Galileo is described as Italian, Leonardo and Michelangelo are Italian on here, and we've got people from Ireland and England described as "Irish" and 'English" well before these states existed (going back to the Early Middle Ages).
How he's described does not hinge on language or ethnicity. I cited numerous sources calling him an "Italian," and even sought a third opinion from an admin who agrees that it's valid to use this language on Polo (based on reliable sources). These decisions are usually made because the individual in question had an impact beyond a particular region. Like other Italian explorers, or famous artists, scientists and philosophers from Italy, Polo had a profound influence on Italy as a whole -he's part of Italian folklore (remember the myth of Polo introducing pasta to Italy?), and was an inspiration to later Italian explorers in the Age of Discovery. The question is: Was Polo an iconic Italian explorer, long a part of Italian history and culture, and is he commonly understood this way? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
A quick follow-up: "Mediterranean" is not even remotely comparable to "Italian". There is no state or nationality called "Mediterranean," nor has there ever been. Italy was not just a 'region' -it was the heart of the Roman Empire, was populated by "Italic" tribes, who went on to form an Italian nation, which later became a modern state. It followed the same pattern that moved other European countries to statehood. The real issue is that you and likeminded editors (who seem to be in a minority here) want to deny a people their pre-state history, which is absurd and ultimately indefensible. This is not even a debate on articles about England, Germany or France, even though the same naive arguments could be used in all these cases. The problem for you is that the terms we use to describe these people today -Italian, French, English, German, Irish etc -are far older than many seem to believe, while there was never any attempt to group "Mediterraneans" (which to this day isn't even a proper word) under a single label. The sheer number of sources describing MP as "Italian" should've put this issue to bed a long time ago. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. -- L o g X 19:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing out the error. Deor (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 02:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Already done Cannolis (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources for any claims. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)