Talk:Marco Polo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Marco Polo has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
July 16, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Good refs not yet in the article[edit]

Please add here any good refs you find:


Journey to China[edit]


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. ISBN 0-7166-0104-4. Book "P" - Volume 15. Pages 648-649.↑

Date of birth[edit]

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 (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


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! (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Polo family origin[edit]

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[edit]

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. --Tone 10:19, 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?
Proceed.--Crovata (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


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)
For example, the Marco Polo on Britannica (as almost an international encyclopedia) can be used as an example according to which the topics can be equate. There's no 15/09/1254, yet c. 1254.--Crovata (talk) 20:45, 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 [[1]]
Marco Polo, Jim Ollhoff - 2014 [[2]]
The Travels of Marco Polo - Complete, Henri Cordier - 2014 [[3]]
What's So Great About Marco Polo?, Sam Rogers - 2013 [[4]]
"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)