Talk:Marco Polo/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


html garbage

Would someone please clean up the html garbage at the bottom of this (semi-protected) article? (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncle matteo

Marco's uncle name was Matteo. Not Maffeo which doesn't exist. Please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[[ == its even in books, its maffeo ==]]Italic text

Controversy section needs work

At the moment, the tone of the section seems to be saying "anybody who thinks Polo didn't reach China is a prejudiced bigot who holds unfair stereotypes of the Chinese." This is not acceptable in what claims to be a neutral POV article. Instead, we need a section that outlines the views of both sides without stooping to ad hominem arguments.--KEVP —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

it was a hoax.

NEW BOOK AUTHENICATES THE STORY OF MARCO POLO:Harry Rutstein in his new book "The Marco Polo Odyssey" (released September 15, 2008, published by the Marco Polo Foundation, Inc.) answers many of the questions raised by these Marco Polo naysayers. Rutstein was the first to follow all the steps of Marco Polo of rom Venice to Beijing in three expeditions starting in 1975 and completed in Beijing on October 22, 1985. Each chapter of "The Marco Polo Odyssey" starts with an excerpt from Marco Polo's book and proceeds to confirm Polo's description by what was found during the Rutstein expedition. He has provided a verifiable authentication of the Marco Polo book. The use by Polo's of mostly Mongolian place names indicates he had some knowledge of the Mongolian language. He does not mention the Great Wall in his story because it was not so great when he passed over or through it at least four times in the thirteenth century. Most of the Wall was not much more than a mound of dirt as it is today. What we identify as the Great Wall today in its eastern reaches was built during the Ming Dynasty after 1358 CE almost a hundred years after Marco Polo . Another good reason for not mentioning the Great Wallof gay, if Polo understood his life was wie5rd its historical importance, was that it had been built to keep out the Mongolians. To write about the Great Wall could have been considered an insult to his host in China and you don't insult the leader of the largest empire in history. Marco Polo does not mention tea because it was not a common drink at that time by the Mongolians amongst whom he lived. He also writes that he was not making any effort to mention "some of the more common spices." This would also explain why he did not write about what is today China's beverage of choice...tea.The controversy about where Marco Polo was born is based upon the fact that a Marco Polo was born on an island off the coast of Croatia but it was the thirteenth century Marco Polo's great-grandfather. The Polo family moved to Venice a few generations before Marco Polo the author was born.Many of the stories or exagerations in Marco Polo's book could be the result of changes made in copies from the original book of which 136 manuscripts still exist and each one is different. Polo states in the opening paragraph of his book that he woulyoyoyoyoyod be telling a story about the things that he saw and the things that he heard from others. He writes about Madagascar, a place we are certain he never visited. However, so much of his book has been verified by the expeditions of Harry Rutstein and other Marco Polo scholars that there is no question that the Marco Polo did go to China and hihehehehes book was the most important and accurate reference to Asia in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It was a guide book for merchants, scholars and explorers (Columbus, et al). This book written by Marco Polo in 1298 started globalization and changed the world. I read in "marco polo and his book." by OOM spencer The entire thing was a hoax, it is very clear to me. This is on a technicality, of what language his book was written in, etc, etc, where is was, and how much was writen considering 20 years has passed.its not a hoax. however some things in the book are exaggerated, or out right lies. there is definative prove that marco polo went to china in an 14 century chinese encyclopedia called Yongle Dadian that mentioned the names of the three monglian envoys who was escorting the bride of a persian king. guess what marco polo was on the ship with these three envoys when he returned to italy and the mentioned the name the three envoys and the names matched with what was stated in Yongle Didian. it was such a small mission that there is no other explaination for the match of the details of the mission between his book and Yongle Diadian, besides of he exprience it himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblah7949 (talkcontribs) 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC) this is a usual mistake.Marco Polo was a Croatian born on island of Korcula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the 3 envoys included Marco Polo?:The Marco Polo account was just a hoax. Since he and his family were supposed to be business people and traders, they did not seem to be doing any trading in Cathay. Given the Mongolian and Chinese languages were very different from the Polos' language, how did they communicate with the great Khan? Marco Polo did not even know old French or Latin and he was a Venetian, so how was he to understand Mongolian or Chinese? He certainly did not appear to be a very capable linguist. Marco's book did not give any significant vocabulary, words or languages of the land he was supposed to have lived and worked in for so many years. If he was really writing a book about places and events in his life to his fellow countrymen about a strange place, would he not at least tell them about the languages he learnt, one or two Chinese characters perhaps, or a phrase or two in Mongolian? Given the view of the great Gheghis Khan about the Christian God, and what he wrote to the contemporary Pope, why would his grandson ask the Pope to send priests? (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC

A Few Additions to Marco Polo

In the section on the cultural impact of Marco Polo, two significant glosses on his life were left out that may be of importance to readers:

Eugene O'Neill wrote a satire on Marco Polo's life, entitled "Marco Millions (Based on Lies)," originally produced on Broadway in 1928 with Alfred Lunt in the title role. Additionally, Hollywood represented Polo's life in the "Adventures of Marco Polo," (1938), a costume drama starring Gary Cooper in the title role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgsulib (talkcontribs) 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

marco polo's childhood

Marco polo was only six when his father and uncle left to go to china and when he returned he was 15 and his mother had allready died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A minor edit is needed in the last section. The section ends with the quotation "it would have been a more amazing feat to amass so much accurate information about Asia without actually going there, then to have made the trip and write about it." The word "then" needs to be replaced with the word "than."

External links

The argument given by Igor de Rachewiltz in the external link given against Frances Wood appears to be full of holes. (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Croatian - Venetian

A lot of sources (like Encyclopedia Britannica (, french historians and so on) say that Marco Polo was Venetian. Only Wikipedia says he was Croatian-Venetian. I think that that is incorrect and someone should fix the article. The only cited source is the book of John Barrow, Travels in China (1804). This book was written in 1804: it s out of date and it' snot enough to say the Polo was Croatian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestorm81 (talkcontribs) 18:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is simply a fake. It's fake that John Barrow wrote "Croatian-Venetian". The book is here.
  1. p. 27 - "the famous traveller Marco Polo, the Venetian"
  2. p. 201 - "Marco Polo (...) the Venetian traveller"
  3. p. 297 - "the celebrated Venetian traveller Marco Polo"
In the last few years there is a Croatian nationalist campaign, which seeks to transform Marco Polo in a perfect Croatian([1], [2], [3], [4], without any scientific evidence. This campaign is also running here in Wikipedia, with some Croatian contributors pushing their POV.-- (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the same is appening with a lot of romance Dalmatians as Giorgio da Sebenico, Giulio Clovio, Niccolò Fiorentino, Andrea Schiavone, Marcus Marulus, Gondola family, Franco Sacchetti, Ghetaldus family, Sorgo family, Bajamonti family etc. etc.

  • hahahaha....what a stupid article. what?! are you croatofob?! Marco Polo was Croat. Is not Croatians who are stilling famous historical parsons, that must be Venice as same as they stole body of st. Marco from Jerusalem, not in the name of crusade but in the name of money. Only master that Venetians ever served till nowdays. Consider Marco Polo's nationality is still not discovered, he can be Croat same as Venetian. And is not only Wikipedia who's writing that Polo was Croat and is not coming from your so called raising nationalism... that is well known fact. so...stop talking stupidity and take your own history to study.
  • I agree that Marco Polo was not Croatian, even if he was only born in Korčula, a place that no one recognized as "Croatian" at that time. That section altogether should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Christopher Columbus was Italian,Dante was Italian,Goethe was German.So why Polo is "VENETIAN"?--Ujkaj4president (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Cristobal Colón, born in the Kingdom of Aragon, now Spain. Seneca, Adriano, Trajano...too. Are Spanish or Roman ? (Sustrai (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Maybe it was because he was born in the Republic of Venice, and Italy wasn't a unified nation back then? BarretBonden (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
so the Italians exist only from 1861?The denomination "Italy" exists from the Roman's age,so why Garibaldi is Italian?Why Mazzini is Italian?Why Goethe is German?--Ujkaj4president (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ujka, please note: the birthplace and ethnicity of Marco Polo are unknown. The possibility exists, though unlikely, of him being of South Slavic ethnicity from the island of Korčula. Careful wording must be used in describing his "nationality". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1) Germany was unified shortly after Italy. 2) There are no evidences that MP was borne outside Venice. See discussion in the article "Birthplace". DIREKTOR did not provide a SINGLE source for this claim,. Even if... this would not make him "slavic" (the ethnicity of Dalmatia is very controversial).-- (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, no nonsense. There is no evidence he was born in Venice either. His birthplace can only be guessed: it is completely and utterly unknown. If you need sources and arguments see the circa one million sources in the Bithplace of Marco Polo article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The source cited in the article (J.Barrow, "Travel in China") says: "Marco Polo, the Venetian". Change the source, or change your false quote.-- (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a scholarly opinion that supports the view that he was born in the city of Venice. I suggest you guys read the whole soon-to-be-deleted Birthplace of Marco Polo article (it is about to be deleted because Marco Polo's birthplace lacks relevance). There you will find many sources that support both the Venetian and Korčulan options. The fact remains, however, that there is no historic evidence which can confirm that Marco Polo was born in any specific place. I repeat: his birthplace is simply unknown. Scholars can only make an educated guess. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

His birthplace is simply unknow? I don't know if this is a joke, however (only some examples):
  1. Henry Cabot Lodge: "born in Venice"[5]
  2. Michael Burgan: "born in Venice"[6]
  3. Amir D. Aczel: "born in Venice"[7]
  4. Antonio Gallenga: "born in Venice"[8]
  5. Kathleen McFarren: "born in Venice"[9]
  6. Steven Oftinoski: "born in Venice"[10]
  7. Charles Knight: "born in Venice"[11]
  8. Conor Reilly: "born in Venice"[12]
  9. Ben Jonson: "born in Venice"[13]
  10. Samuel Griswold Goodrich: "born in Venice"[14]
  11. Luigi Foscolo: "born in Venice"[15]
  12. The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography: "born in Venice"[16]
  13. Marshall Cavendish Corporation: "born in Venice"[17]
  14. George Walsh: "born in Venice"[18]
  15. Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages: "born in Venice"[19]
  16. James Augustus St. John: "born in Venice"[20]
  17. A.B.Poland: "born in Venice"[21]
  18. Syed Manzoorul Islam: "born in Venice"[22]
  19. R.D.Mallery: "born in Venice" [23]
  20. C.E.Lester: "born in Venice"[24]
  21. Diana Childress: "born in Venice"[25]
  22. Ronald Latham: "born in Venice"[26]
  23. Manuel Komroff: "born in Venice"[27]
  24. H.Yule-H.Cordier: "born in Venice"[28]
Enough?-- (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes,"born in Republic of Venetia" makes happy everybody^^.--Ujkaj4president (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No they say, "Venice" not the "Republic of Venice". MP himself always saied "Venice": non need to repeat, just read old discussions. The problem are not evidences, but users that refuse to face evidences.-- (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here we go... dear IP, do you have any idea how much discussion took place on this matter? You're probably new to this controversy. I'd advise you get acquainted with the matter. Step #1: check the archives. Step #2: read the Birthplace of Marco Polo article and the contradictory sources therein.
Finally, I will repeat myself once more: the sources you quote are simply opinions of scholars on this matter (even though they're probably for the most part referring to the Venetian Republic when they say "Venice"). There is no historic evidence as to the the birthplace of Marco Polo: it is unknown. Historians can only make educated guesses and theories (there are two theories).
(Note: I'll be signing off here, but will observe the developments.)
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That what I did. I've read discussions![29][30]. You did not provide a single evidence for your claims. There is not a single scholar who supports your theory. If I'm wrong, provide your evidences...You are (with some friends) the only user in Wiki who support this theory, ignoring all the posted evidences! As everybody can read.-- (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
DIREKTOR altered for months this article, presenting false evidences. He did it in bad faith. He leads a group of users, to impose nationalistic POV in Wikipedia. Just read his history (Special:Contributions/DIREKTOR). He deserves the ban for what he did in this article and Birthplace of Marco Polo. Not to say his general behaviour. Just read this Talk:Marco_Polo/Archive_1 and this Talk:Birthplace_of_Marco_Polo. And this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Birthplace_of_Marco_Polo!! And this shameful POV version [31]--[[Special:Contributions/ (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)3|]]. (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP: you apparently think that this is just "me and my pals", I assure you, such a thing could never have passed on Wikipedia for such a long period of time without sources and real support. You will face real problems if you do not try to keep an open mind and remain civil. Did you read The Korčula theory section of the Birthplace of Marco Polo article and its subsections? Did you read the sources and arguments that support the "Korčula theory"?
(All users please note: the IP belongs to the banned User:Luigi 28, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:PIO. This user was community banned for sockpuppeteering and edit-warring, I will be removing his persistent disruptions.)
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(All users please note: the IP belongs to the banned User:Luigi 28, a NON confirmed sockpuppet of User:PIO. This user was community banned, because of the false evidences presented by DIREKTOR'S group.
-- (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
DIREKTOR you always act in group, exhausting all the single contributors, as everybody can check. That your way to impose your ideology (as everybody can check). Your Korcula Theory has already been ridiculoized here[32].-- (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I report that DIREKTOR several times deleted this passage Show me a single name of a serious historian who supported the Korcula theory. A single name!. I report it as mine. D. shows in this way his lack arguments and his tecniques of "discussion".-- (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just call me Don Direttore. I always hunt in packs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea... this is the style... if you think who control the "information controller" in your country [33] ... the same who control who placed this kind of bullshit in their own official website...[34]

My evil shall spread across the globe! None may hinder me! mwahahaahaaa!!!! :P Mr. IP, Please keep an open mind, please? There is no reason why a compromise could not be achieved. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

For now you just spread your ignorance across Wikipedia. Compromise it's for politic, not for history. You are in wiki, not in the site of your government! You presented no sources. No sources, no compromise. Anyway the judgement about your previous "compromises" it's here. Mr. IP (-- (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC))

The article is being deleted because the subject lacks relevance and is constantly edit-warred over, not because the "powers of Wikipedia" suddenly decided you're right. Only in your head is this anything like a "judgment" on the Korčula theory. You're new here if you're able to imagine this kind of nonsense. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It's going to be deleted for your behaviour, the edit wars and the false evidences you have inserted in it. As everybody can read. Nobody trust in you! That the fact!-- (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

xD deleted because of my behavior!?! Are you joking? You need to improve your English skills: you're filling in the blanks with your own delusions. "Nobody trust in me", LoL, who's "nobody", you and your buddies? You really are new here... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

1) The Polos lived in the town(not just in the republic) of Venice since the beginning of the XI century. So Marco Polo's family was venetian (hence italian).
2) He was known as Marco Polo from Venice (read the Travels of Marco Polo), "from Venice" is a toponomastic name and means that he was born in Venice. Like Leonardo da Vinci, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, Thomas Aquinas(Tommaso d'Aquino in italian), Giovanni da Pian del Carpine and so on. If he was born elsewhere, especially in a characteristic place like a small dalmatian island, he would have another toponomastic name. (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo became a favorite of the khan, who employed him as an adviser and a tax assessor.

I read the article and could not find this detail, though it may prove to be useful. What was Marco Polo actualy like what is another name for a Pirate Traveler Who trades on sea can you give me some words it would realy help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Pipino

Francesco Pipino, who translated the book of Marco Polo into Latin, was not a franciscan friar (how is uncorrectly said in the article) but a dominican. I know it well, because I graduated with a thesis about him. I corrected the error in the Italian Version and added a brief article about "Francesco Pipino". I hope someone will correct the wrong information in the english version too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Visits to other parts of Asia

Why does this article not mention Marco Polo's visits to other areas of Asia (such as Sri Lanka or Indonesia), which are detailed in his writings? Badagnani (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"All this guide to conclusion that Marco Polo was indeed born in Korčula."

Thats inacceptable to consider some croatian turistic guide more important than British Enciclopedya and other official sources. That's really frustrating to vanish the work of serious historians.Please correct thwe statement. This article is not a croatian pamplet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestorm81 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It's still horribly POV, but sadly even CNN is screening Croatian tourist ads presenting this stuff as fact. Paul B (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

New editor to need Help with Two articles Needed

See also Silk Route Museum ,ref/>. Can anyone help me with this article, and the article on Yasheng Group Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). ? I am new. The references are all in Chinese. It says "be bold", so I am writing this here hoping someone will help correct the two articles to get them improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChinaUpdater (talkcontribs) 17:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Marco Polo was born in Croatia?"

I suggest to change the title in "Marco Polo was born in Dalmatia?". The island of Korcula is member of Dalmatian archipelago, today under croatian rule. Saying Marco Polo was born in Croatia is a presentism : according to that kind of speculation Archimede was born in Italy, Mandubracius was born in England, Hannibal in Tunisy and Montezuma I in Mexico. That's a non-sense. According wikipedia Croatia is "is a country in Southeastern Europe". At this time Croatia doesnt exists.

In that section we can read: "A chronicle published by Achivo Storico per la Dalmatia not only refers similarly to the family's Dalmatian origin,". So there is a contraddiction between title and article.

I checked all sources supporting so-called Croatian birthpalce and are fake

[15] island of Curzola, off the coast of Dalmatia

[17] "a descendant of an old Dalmatian family"

[18] "Polo, this man originally came from Dalmatia"

[19] is a turistic video made by Croatian Gouvernement so is a POV

[20] is unaviable so please remove

[21] “This was Venice,”. So according that source. Polo was a venetian. Please remove that source from section supporting croatian birthplace

The only souce supporting Croatian adjective is the [16] 16= "Though a Venetian by citizenship Marco Polo was born in Croatia, on the island of Korcula -- then a part of the Venetian Empire -- off the Dalmatian coast". That source support the venetian theory.

All so called croatian sources (included personal blog) was misunderstood. No mention of Croatian nationality. Please we need really to clean up that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestorm81 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and improve it. This section really needs some reworking. --Tone 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok. that article is protected and i cannot do nothing. However i am looking for croatian sources supporting croatian theory.

--Firestorm81 (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • If we say that Marco Polo was a Croatian and not Italian because born in Korcula (Curzola at that time), we have to say also that Garibaldi (born in Nice/Nizza, now in France) was a French and not Italian and that Justinian of Constantinople (now Istanbul) was a Turkish emperor of Slavic origin and not a Roman emperor of Illyrian origin ( because born in what is now FYROM).--Deguef (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad references

There are many references used on the article so I'll add them here and we can check yes or no on the ones that seem reliable or not.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. (bad)
  2. (not needed, video with no author or publication date)
  3. (dead)
  4. (blog, owned by a traveling company)
  5. (not the official page of Croatia, no known publisher)
  6. (BAD)
  7. (Author is Electrical Engineer not a scholar)
  8. (could be reliable, The Australian National University, can be used)
  9. (Information is collected by visitors, unreliable)
  10. (said to be reliable, needs more info)
Aren't 1 & 9, 2 & 8, 3 & 10 duplicates? - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 20:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes - switch to "ref name" when we change them to {{cite web}} etc. Fleetflame 20:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Before we do that could we look if they're even reliable?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Having Italian as my first language I can vouch for the reliability of (I checked surnames the origin of which I already knew, mine, bizzarely as it's quite common, is not included). Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
How is the website itself considered to be a reliable source?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I had to look it up. The site was maintained by Ettore Rossoni, quite an eminent Italian etymologist, and is basically the result of his life's work. The site is also listed in the link page of LIOn, Laboratorio Internazionale Onomastica, the international laboratory on the origin of surnames run by Universita' degli studi di Roma Tor Vergata, one of Rome's Universities. link: . Is that reliable enough? Brutaldeluxe (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Could u find more info about his name like why he was named so and so on?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
From what I know he was named after Venice's saint patron, Saint Mark and as for his surname if it isn't derived from ancient latin then, seeing as people in those days got their surnames from their profession or what they sold, his ancestors sold or bred chickens, as polo means chicken in Veneto. This however could be hard to find sources for, as Italian writers are probably reluctant to admit to such humble origins. I think the Lonely Planet book for Croatia mentions polo meaning chicken in Veneto. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've found quite an extensive history of Polo's family and details on his wife and of his will at Google books:
it's in Italian, I will translate and include the info when I have more time on my hands. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Name section

The name section is very short and doesn't fit anywhere. I moved it here until it's expanded enough to have a section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Polo is either an indirect transliteration of the Latin cognomen Paullus or a direct translation of the Latin cognomen Polus[1]

Removed refs

All refs that were included in the controversy section over Croatia have been removed as they haven't been checked and are merely copied from . I listed them here so that anyone can explain how these scientists came to the conclusion that he was born in Croatia. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Genealogie de Nobili Veneti, Brit. Museum, Ms. 1155, 1679: "Polo clan originated in Sibenik, 1033"
  • Biografia Universal Antica e Moderna, 1878, Venice: "Polo family came from Dalmatia"
  • Dizionario Universal di Geografia, Storia e Biografia, 1878, Milano: "Marco came from Dalmatia"
  • Dolcetti Giovanni; Il Libre D'Argent delle Famiglie Venete, Nobili Cittadine e Popolani, 1922, Venice: "Polo origins from Sibenik in 1033"
  • Giovanna Monticola; La Vita Dal Dogi, 1900, Citta di Castelo: "Polo of Dalmatia became nobility in 1381"
  • La Vita Dal Dogi, 1522, Venice: "Polo family came from Dalmatia"
  • Storia Universal Italiana, 1878, Milano: "Polo family came from Dalmatia"


We don't have enough refs to support the claims. Also it is written in a question and answer formatIrunongames • play 14:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Marco Polo born in Croatia?

Marco Polo's alleged birthplace in town of Korčula, in Croatia.

According to some historians, Marco Polo was born in Korčula, in Croatia.[citation needed]

Korčula is a small town on the island of Korčula in the Adriatic sea on the Dalmatian coast of Croatia, which was at that time disputed between the Venetian Republic and the Croat-Hungarian Kingdom. According to some, the Polo family were nobles originating from there and Niccolo and Maffeo established a trading outpost on the island. The house on Korčula in which Marco Polo was born is still standing. Historical evidence of Dalmatian and Korčulan origin of the Polo family is provided by a number of documents. A manuscript in the British Museum, on well-known families in the Europe of his day, testifies to the Dalmatian origins of the Polo family. A chronicle published by the Archivio Storico per la Dalmazia not only refers similarly to the family's Dalmatian origin, but also states that before Marco Polo became an established Venetian citizen after writing his famous account of his travels, the Polo family had had no association with the City of Venice. Another document published around 1400 in Buletino di Archeologia e Storia Dalmata refers to a certain Bogavaz Depolo as being the owner of a dwelling in Korčula, while a record exists of a Mateo Polo applying to the Community of Korcula, in 1430, for the award of a plot of land on which to establish his shipbuilding workshop "as his forefathers had been making small ships there for centuries" (Archive Kapor, Korcula). The surname ‘Depolo’ still exists on Korčula.

Marco Polo was buried in the Slavic quarter of Venice, near the Riva degli Schiavoni ("Riva od Hrvatov"). [citation needed]

Did Marco Polo visit the Mongol empire?

Some modern historians question the veracity of Marco Polo's account, and wonder whether he really visited the Mongol empire, or whether Marco Polo was simply repeating stories that he had heard from other traders. Dr. Frances Wood has questioned whether or not Marco Polo even visited China, and has pointed out several things that a European traveler probably would have mentioned, but which Polo did not, and that there is no mention of Marco Polo in Chinese accounts of the period.[2] Historian Peter Jackson argues that there are several different versions of Polo's book, and questions whether it even represents Polo's account at all, but was instead simply written by a romance writer of the time. Questions have also been raised as to whether Marco Polo, if he did visit China, was genuinely an ambassador, or if he was simply one of the many travelers at the time who claimed to be an ambassador.[3] However, Laurence Bergreen, in his book, Marco Polo From Venice to Xanadu, writes "it would have been a more amazing feat to amass so much accurate information about Asia without actually going there, than to have made the trip and write about it." Furthermore, other scholars have argued that none of these assumptions about what observations Marco Polo should have made about China are relevant to Marco Polo's account as he rarely interacted with native culture.[citation needed]

Information needing citation

Place here any new info.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Death as a result of cancer (Reference: ref for cancer death) Unconfirmed, but likely, in his will he wrote: "conscious that the illness which affects me is worsening, but healthy of mind..." Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Mother's name is Dona Lisa Polo.


Please take note that the article on Marco Polo in the Hungarian Wikipedia is a 'Featured article' on that Wiki. Although their standards are considerably different, and it certainly lacks references, I'm sure that useful ideas for structure and images could come from it.

The article in hungarian is hu:Marco Polo.

A google auto-translation is here.

 Chzz  ►  21:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Old (but online viewable) book references

These books are available online;

Whilst these appear to be reliable sources, care should be taken due to their age. Documentation of the history of Polo could certainly have come to light more recently, so newer sources will need to be checked.

This specific issue was raised in two places;

 Chzz  ►  03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth date

After some lengthy discussion and debate on IRC, we've drawn a consensus to remove the birth date, "September 15," and to replace it with "c. 1254." Sources online have differing opinions on the date, and Wikipedia is the only source online stating September 15th. Other sources on the web that state September 15th are various lesser known websites, and one non-notable foundation. They most likely took this hoax, or some other form of original research from Wikipedia. Some sources state "circa 1254," whereas others assert this is the correct year. For the time being, due to the conflicting information, we have agreed that it should stay "circa" until we can attain a concrete source to back it up. –blurpeace (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't split the article; What subject are we talking about?


It was suggest that information regarding The Polos be spit into a new article. I disagree. I believe the most notable subject at hand is the journey between Europe and China. This was not accomplished by Marco Polo alone. I do not think that the Polos excluding Marco are significantly notable to have their own article. From my perspective, the article is about "The Polos". However, "Marco Polo" is the most easily recognized name and the use for the title is indicated by WP:NC#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name. Esoteric Rogue (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It was me who made this suggestion. My stance is this;
  • This article is about 'Marco Polo' - that is what we are working on, for right or wrong. We should therefore document anything regarding his life, from his perspective, with due weight, etc.
  • There is certainly sufficient notability for article(s) on his brothers - ie there is 'significant coverage in reliable sources'
  • As far as spotlight is concerned, we don't need to concern ourselves with an article about 'The Polo's' or whatever; let's stick to the topic
  • A way of improving this article about Marco Polo would be to move the extraneous info about his brothers to a different article, summarise it, and use summary style - ie a paragraph or two about the pertinent details partic w/ respect to Marco Polo, and leave the rest in another article

This was debated in the IRC channel, and I made the following comments;

  • We could just remove the info - but that's a last resort; creating this other article, I see as a compromise - we won't be removing anything at all from Wikipedia, just arranging it in a more orderly fashion. It'll still be there; it could even be merged back if people want to.
  • Wikipedia is a very very long-term project; in the fullness of time, I see no reason that there could not be a 10- page featured article on the brothers; I think that there are enough sources of information to possibly make such an article, if one concentrated on it
  • Anything done can be undone, so in that spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, shall we 'give it a try' ? I just see this as a way of moving forwards; not getting into a rut, and developing the article. Like I said, nothing is set in stone, and it's a way of us drawing a line under the debate for now, with no problem changing our minds later; we can get on with things - this is the idea behind spotlight. BOLD, snap decisions are better than ongoing uncertainty. If the decision turns out to be the wrong one, we click that 'history' button and try again.

The result of these discussions was a consensus to create the new article, summarise it in this one. If further discussion here results in significant objections, then this action can be reverted without prejudice.  Chzz  ►  04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Plan to implement the above

1. In a sandbox, write lede for new article

2. Copy "The brothers Polo journeys" into it, rewrite as necc. Keep the refs with it.

Being done in user:Chzz/Niccolò and Matteo Polo  Chzz  ►  07:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Add summary of remainder of their lives from MP article, with refs available

4. Make it live, as Niccolò and Matteo Polo

5. Redirect Niccolò Polo and Matteo Polo to that page

5. Summarize it in another sandbox

6. Replace the section in MP "The brothers Polo journeys" with the summary, and a {{main}} thingy

 Chzz  ►  06:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the other article be "Journey of..." The people themselves aren't really notable, it's that event which defines them - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 11:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

An external link to IBDB has been added; the article could do with a short-ish section perhaps called "In popular culture" or "Fictional depictions", giving some detail on particularly notable movies/books etc.  Chzz  ►  20:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested improvement plan, spotlight, 9 July

1.Early life section needs expanding to include the brothers journey, return, and pope mission

might have to await more source, or chzz to flesh it out a bit, from VX

2. We need a section before the Early life or at the end saying "About Marco Polo's sources"

chzz & Duduman to attempt this, now. doing

3. "The Travels of Marco Polo" needs a rewrite

Some sources may exist in The_Travels_of_Marco_Polo, and there is a bit in WB.
Hack it to pieces, as we have with other sections, and rewrite with only well-ref'd stuff. Delete unref'd.
Explain about the naming, Italian "Il Milione", at the *start* of this section

4. Legacy

In popular culture - Add significant movies and other 'modern media' (use the IMDB in external).
get rid of the subsections (unless they expand sufficiently to warrant subs), rework so it makes sense together. further exploration, cartography, then names and in popular culture
Investigate further; gather refs, add appropriate other things

 Chzz  ►  01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Early Life: Who raised Marco Polo?

We have an ambiguous "uncle" in the Early Life section. Here is the text, condensed:

[Marco Polo's] father ... and his uncle, Maffeo Polo, were merchants. His father and uncle left for Constantinople. ... [Marco Polo] was raised by his aunt and uncle. ...

The article give the impression that his father did not raise him because his father was in Constantinople. If that were the case, I doubt the uncle in Constantinople would raise him either.

It is unclear who, precisely, this uncle is that helped raise Marco Polo:

  • Maffeo Polo (last thought to in Constantinople with Niccolò)
  • a different uncle

Please keep an eye out for "Who raised Marco Polo" in the sources.-- EsotericRogue Talk 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DONE (Probably raised by aunt Flora and other family members -- Hart, H. Henry)-- EsotericRogue Talk 08:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Marco Polo-proposed layout

Following discussions on IRC, in the #wikipedia-spotlight channel;

There were concerns regarding stating the story of Marco Polo from his own books as 'fact', when it is clear (from the various scholarly research) that the accounts a) were partly fictitious in the first place, and b) were subsequently changed when copied, translated, etc.

This makes the article controversial, and the best way to deal with it seems to be to state the facts, and allow the reader to decide their accuracy. Separating the stories taken from Marco's book from the other information known about his life might help clarify.

This is all in the spirit of stuffing tigers.

A proposed structured solution;

  1. Lede
  2. Life
    1. Childhood
    2. Voyages (but quite brief; just the dates and fact that he went, and who with - nothing detailed)
    3. Imprisonment
    4. Death
  3. The Travels of Marco Polo
    1. Adaptation and translation (details of factual accuracies etc)
    2. Stories (accounts of his travels taken from his memoirs, all about Kublai Khan, etc)
  4. Legacy (the subsections here might be rearranged, depending on how they expand)
    1. Further exploration
    2. In popular culture
    3. Names
    4. Cartography
  5. See also
  6. Footnotes
  7. References
  8. Further reading
  9. External links

The broad concept of this structure is to separate the factual information from Marco's own accounts. This concept was agreed in principle over IRC by the following parties

  1. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. blurpeace (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks good as you've done it, really. I think I would give some indication in the ToC where the description of their voyages actually is. Maybe splitting "stories" to provide extra headings would work? Having said that, "stories" seems a little broad; in his book, Polo goes off on a load of wonderful tangents that are completely inappropriate for this section (wars, splendour, people he met). What is better, however, still deceives me. - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wealth accrued

The Encyclopedia Britannica seems to like the idea that they were robbed on their way home in Trebizond, so they would reach home with very little in their pockets. Do other sources repeat this detail? - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight - partial/initial review by Chzz

Some comments and suggestions for improvements

  • I really dislike the opening parenthetical remarks about DOB/death, ie "(September 15, 1254[1] – January 9, 1324 at earliest, but no later than June 1325[2])". I understand the necessity for documenting the disparities, but I feel that here, at the beginning, it is overly complex. I'm not sure of the best way to resolve it; perhaps we can just have one note or something, and elaborate in the body text. Compare it with Jimmy Wales and the ongoing dispute over his DOB; that one looks a lot 'cleaner'.
  • "Il Milione ("The Million" or The Travels of Marco Polo)" - I think that this could be made neater using {{lang-it}}
  • Can we get an IPA for his name?
 Done by Blurpeace (talk · contribs) - nice work :-)  Chzz  ►  01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The lede does not currently summarize the rest of the article; perhaps, though, this is best done at the end of the rest of the editing.
  • The infobox re. "Born" says;
September 15, 1254(1254-09-15)
Venice, Italy (disputed)
This makes it look like the place is disputed, rather than the date. Again, perhaps better to use a link to a note rather than the word 'disputed'?
The place is disputed. c.f. Talk about a Croation birthplace above. - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 11:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Voyages of Marco Polo" should just be "Voyages" (section header) - we know the subject.
 Done Removed :) Irunongames • play 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The "expand section" from 2001 in there should be removed now
 Done Removed by someone Irunongames • play 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if "Il Milione" section should have that title, or if it should have the English title. I think probably it should be "The Travels of Marco Polo" - this is English Wikipedia, so the name in Italian is probably not suitable as the heading, unless there is some intrinsic importance.
 Done by someone. Fleetflame 01:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "See also" - the links would benefit from some short descriptive texts, for example,
 Done by Blurpeace (talk · contribs)
  • I'm not completely sure that those links are appropriate anyway - I don't see any direct relevence to Polo.
 Done by Blurpeace (talk · contribs)
  • Same for "Related topics"; I'm not clear on the relevence of all those links. See WP:ALSO
  • The reference formatting in 'notes' is not consistent; some dates are in brackets, some come at the start, some at the end, some ISBN's have dashes and some don't, etc.
  • Most of the book references do not have publication place.
  • Book references need page number. (GA criteria). Hence they should be inline citations.
I think these are all done.... Fleetflame 01:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Web references are not formatted correctly; they should have 'access date' etc.
 Done by someone. Fleetflame 01:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There are far too many unreferenced facts throughout the article, presently

Early Life

  • "Marco was born to Niccolò Polo " - Using his first name in this manner looks informal; he should be referred to as "Polo" consistently.
he should be referred to as "Polo", or "Marco Polo" if ambiguous. (the term "consistently" was too strict)Esoteric Rogue (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree  Chzz  ►  01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "born to Niccolò Polo on September 15 in Venice, Italy" - what year?
  • "His father and his uncle, Maffeo (also Maffio)" confusing - looks like 3 people. Rewrite to clarify
 Done Fixed :)
  • "Marco il vecchio (the Elder). " - again, perhaps better with {{lang-it}}?
  • "The three [...] established trading posts in Constantinople, Sudak in the Crimea, and in a western part of the Mongol Empire" - this is a bit confusing. Did all of them establish posts in four places, or one in each, or what? Can it be clarified?
  • "Constantinople" is linked twice within the section
  • "Leaving an as-yet unborn Marco behind" ??? What does that mean?
    • Well, we have here a little conundrum. Marco is supposed to have been born in '54, and yet his father set sail in '52. Evidently we need to make clear that the brothers left without Marco, regardless of whether Marco had actually been born yet (which he probably hadn't). - Jarry1250 [ humourousdiscuss ] 11:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It would seem that everything down to the para "In his book" is not about Marco, hence I don't think that it should be in a section called 'Early life', if indeed it is included at all.
  • "Marco explains..." better as "Polo explains..."
  • "a golden tablet a foot long and three inches (76 mm) wide" unit formatting needs fixing, also needs a ref (like most things)
  • "Saint Jean d'Acre" - are we certain that Acre was called that, at that time?
  • "The long sede vacante — between the death" why the mdashs?
  • We refer to Kublai Khan as "Kublai Khan", "Khan" and "Kublai" - it should be consistent. Looking at the article Kublai Khan, I think that 'Kublai' is probably more correct (except for the first instance where we should give the full name with the link).
  • "As suggested by Theobald Visconti, then papal legate for the realm of Egypt, in Acre for the Ninth Crusade, the two brothers returned to Venice in 1269 or 1270, waiting for the nomination of the new Pope." - too many clauses, needs a rewrite (but then, so does most of the article ;-) )

(stopping the review at this point as discussions on channel indicate that large portions of the text will need to be rewritten, so there is little point in picking through the grammar further at this time).

 Chzz  ►  20:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


What is up with the excessive references? I mean, surely putting unaccessible and unsightly [1]s all through a paragraph seems kinda pointless. Why not keep the one at the end of it? Anon. (unsigned, from 18:33, 11 July 2009

The point is, if someone adds another fact mid-paragraph without a reference, then it can appear that it is covered by the same reference. This happens frequently. Then, sometimes, someone checks that fact to the given ref, discovers that it is not covered, and removes the entire para.
If you check featured articles, you will see that they are extensively referenced.  Chzz  ►  21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reff for Venice Marco Airport

GA notes

Just a note to editors; the GA review including extensive notes is no longer transcluded on this page, but it is in Talk:Marco Polo/GA1.  Chzz  ►  22:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversies - remove?

I don't think that the article should have a 'controversies' section; I welcome comments from others.

  • I removed the uncited information re. the "birthplace controversy", because I think that this is adequately covered in the existing footnote.
  • I think that the "Did Marco every go to China?" is a fringe theory, and that the inclusion as a section gives it undue weight. We could easily cite thousands of books that say he did go, and that is how his accounts are presented by many other significant encyclopædias.
  • With the recent overhaul of the article, great care was taken to present 'facts' and make it as clear as possible that the accounts of Polo may well be embellished, modified, etc. We have attempted to stuff the tiger, and we don't want it running around again.

Also, the article recently passed the good article criteria; adding unreferenced or poorly referenced information threatens this status.  Chzz  ►  13:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I completely agree with the views presented by Chzz, and I would like to add that, even if some of the material is worth including, a "controversy" section is not a good way of doing this. Instead, alternative views should be presented alongside the standard view; "controversy" sections should be avoided. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm personally very glad to see this article heading towards the kind of quality and stability this topic deserves. Should the 'Controversies' section be removed? Well, now that I see the arguments (particularly GA status), I think so as well. The controversy should be included in the text, but perhaps slightly more than it is now. The question is how? The fact is, the location of his birthplace is quite unknown. All else is speculation, speculation based on various sources, but speculation nonetheless. While opinions differ, Venice is certainly far more quoted and supported, however: that does not mean we can affirm that "Marco Polo was born in Venice" with simply a footnote stating "we really have no idea, but most people think so". There are two places I believe require slight rewording
  • 1) The lead. The article should in my opinion simply state he was "from the Venetian Republic". The other (less probable) birthplace, Korčula, was also within the Venetian Republic at the time. Its elegant and (most importantly) more accurate.
  • 2) 'Childhood' subsection. Since, and I emphasize again, the birthplace of Marco Polo is unknown, I see no reason why the article should say otherwise. I propose we simply state "Marco Polo was born in the Venetian Republic, while the exact birthplace is unknown, most biographers point towards Venice itself as the birthplace." ...or something to that effect. The mention of Korčula could remain in the note, or it could be briefly mentioned in the text. Both possibilities are fine in my opinion.
As for references, there's more sources than can fit in the article. The old 'Birthplace of Marco Polo' article was crammed full of all sorts of scholarly opinions on this issue... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be happy with the removal of the controversies section and the 2 edits detailed above. I think that will be ample clarification. Other sources (such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica etc) make the bold claim "He was born in Venice" - but then again, they make many other bold proclamations that are, in reality, only based on adapted/translated/modified copies of Polo's book. I think we can do better than that, and that is why, in restructuring the article, we have tried to separate the 'stories' from other information. We shouldn't go over the top though - we don't need to distract readers with a dissection of the sources (a says this, but b and c say that; d, however thinks the other). The above suggestion is fine; I don't know if others will chip in to this discussion or not, but I hope that those edits can go ahead soon, and that we can lose the 'controversy' part. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Controversies section. JamieS93 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency Requires Resolution

Good Article!

One minor discrepancy:

The first paragraph has MP "reuniting" with his father and brother.

Further down in the 2nd paragraph of the 'Childhood section it states "In 1269, Niccolò and Maffeo returned to Venice, meeting Marco for the first time."

While I'm pretty sure 'reuniting' is incorrect I didn't try to resolve it because I don't have the time to check authoritative sources (because I'm at work).

Thank you,

NetScr1be 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pboake (talkcontribs)

 Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


MARCO POLO WAS HELD PRISONER IN GENOA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested external links

In the Footsteps of Marco Polo (PBS Documentary)

This documentary got me interested in looking up Marco Polo on Wikipedia. The documentary's website says the full film can be viewed online and has now been nomimated for an Emmy - I think well deserved. (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)anna

UPDATE: Turns out the PBS documentary is done by the same team that did the documentary for the MET which this wiki article has linked (see MET link in wiki article). According to their film's website (see above for link), they will be renaming the version done for the MET "The Legacy of Marco Polo." (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC) anna


Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, is a Playstation 3 game that features Marco Polo in the story VERY heavily. I came here looking to see if the legends told within the story were true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

MARCO POLO WAS THE FRIST TO GO TO CHIA AND COME BACK WHITH RICHES HE ROT A BOOK ABOUT HIS JORUNEY —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Let us forget, for some time, the problem of the real birthplace of Marco Polo. Despite he was born in Venice of wherever, he was a self-decleared "venetian". He shall, consequently, described as "Venetian" and not as "from the Venitian Repulic" (btw the proper name was "Republic of Venice").

In The Travels of Marco Polo [35][36] we can, in fact, read:

1) Prologue "(...) according to the description of Messer Marco Polo, a wise and noble citizen of Venice, as he saw them with his own eyes."

2) CHAPTER XXXIV AND LAST But I believe it was God's pleasure that we should get back in order that people might learn about the things that the world contains. For according to what has been said in the introduction at the beginning of the Book, there never was a man, be he Christian or Saracen or Tartar or Heathen, who ever travelled over so much of the world as did that noble and illustrious citizen of the City of Venice, Messer Marco the son of Messer Nicolo Polo.-- (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


Why is this article lacking a section on the dispute of whether Polo even made the voyage? There are no official records in China of Marco Polo ever arriving or being a tax collector for Kublai Kahn. This discrepancy needs to be addressed because the article is biased and it has no substantial section on the possibility of Polo's invention of his voyage. This is not a conspiracy theory, many scholars doubt the credibility of Polo's voyage. Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that this has been discussed over and over again, and these discussions are in the archives of this page, along with the answers you seek. Also, please remember to sign your comments. Thanks and happy editing. Merenta (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

British now? WP:ENGVAR

What's this British English? It was American English when the spotlight finished with it (July2009). It appears the WP:ENGVAR was violated. Explicitly, at sometime it was changed from WP:AmE to WP:BrE, violating WP:RETAIN. Hijacked, I think. -- EsotericRogue Talk 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth

Well, if the place of birth is unknown, why is it included as Venice in the infobox? The most of the indications and actual facts direct toward Croatian island Korčula. Therefore, there is not a single proof of his birthplace in Venice. Korčula was at the time part of Venice Republic and the family Polo existed at the time only on the mentioned island. Even the house where he was born is known on the island. The surname Polo at the time is exclusively Croatian. For additional information I advise Please discuss, I plan to correct the birthplace if no new sources saying he was born in Venice occurs. Anyway, the mention that he was a Croat is also missing.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This got sorted out when the article came under the spotlight. Basically most ancient sources say that Polo referred to himself as Venetian born and bred, and the sources claiming his birth on Korčula are quite recent. is not a valid source as it is a promotional site for the island. See the talk archive. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the validity of the source. But several facts are more important.

(1) there is not a single Venetian citizen in city of Venice whose surname was Pol or Polo until XIII century. (2) Marko Polo was arrested in 1298 (according to all sources) in Korčula. - what was he doing there during the war? (3) Not quite true that such sources are recent - Šime Ljubić: Dizionario biografico degli uomini illustri della Dalmazia, Vienna 1856 (to sum up, he claims he was born in Korčula). (4) Venecian autors state: Family Polo moved first to Venice in mid XIII century, for example Italian historian Giotto Danielli: Marco Polo, Venice, 1954 - proves that Polo family came from Dalmatia in XIII (5) The registered coat of arms of the Polo family at that time in Dalmatia has three water-birds that were called in Croatian Pol. No such linkage with Venecian language and the coat of arms exists. Neither Latin, nor Italian or Venetian languages have a word pol in the dictionary. In early Croatian pol means this kind of waterbird. (6) Between 1250 and 1269 Marko's father didn't visit Venice not only once. (He was somewhere else, rising his family) (7) THE MOST IMPORTANT There is not a single word in all the originals that Marko even once called himself Venetian born or bred. Find one and you have a point. The term Venetian was coined by Italian and other translations and new editions of his original words. What is even more striking, the message from Kublai kan to the roman Pope does not mention only once Venice as republic, Venice as a city nor venetian doge. Quite strange if the messangers were "Venetians", and the leter mentiones even smaller states of that time and their rulers. (8) the sole fact that Italians are bigger nation and for that reason have bigger publishing capacity does not mean nothing when the facts are concerned. The criterion "there are more publications saying this" is sorry to say, but childish. (similar story is with Italian Luca Pacioli, who didn't invent double-book keeping, but Italians wrote so much about it that it would ba a pitty now to state the truth.)

No offence to Italians, this is by chance so, but it applies to all bigger European nations that tend to steal innovations by overpublishing the smaller nations, even if wrong. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point (1) is simply false. Marco Polo himself wrote his name: "Polo". (3) Wich is the Gliubich's source? He claims that Polo was born in "Curzola" (you know, Gliubich wrote in Italian...), without any kind of source. (4) The correct name is "Giotto Dainelli": he don't "proves" anything. But Dainelli wrote that Polo was "Italian". (4) Do you have seen the coat of arms of the Polo of XIII century? This is a real scoop! Where is this coat of arms? (6) The Polo's house was in Venice, in that years. (7) The title of the oldest Codex we can read of "Il Milione" is "Le divisament dou monde de Meser March Pol de Venice" (Biblioteque National de Paris - mns. 1116). "Meser March Pol de Venice". This book is in franco-italian (French and Italian mixed together). You said: "Find one and you have a point". So we have a point...-- (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
(1) read my assertion properly "UNTIL XIII century" (2)What he claims is correct. What source do the ones saying different name? (3)again read the assertion properly, he said he originates from Dalmatia. (4) no, I havent, I read about it from reliable sources. You can buy the coat of arms of Polo Family

MARCO POLO - Croatian Adventurer CROATIAN HERALDRY, By Adam S. Eterovich POLO----PILIC----DEPOLO

The Marco Polo Coat of Arms includes four chickens. In Italian, Polo means chicken or fowl; in Croatian Pilich means chicks or chickens. Accident or coincidence? The Arms are registered in Dalmatia.

Henry S. Hart in his book, Venetian Adventurer: Marco Polo, states, "These merchants were Maffeo and Nicolo Polo, sons of one Marco Polo, a descendant of an old Dalmatian Family which had come from Sibenik, Dalmatia, and settled in Venice in the 11th Century." Hart goes on to say, "The crews of the Venetian ships were freemen, so many of them Slavonians (Croatians) from the Dalmatian Coast that the long dock by St. Mark's Square was and is known as the Riva degli Schiavoni (Slavonian-Croatian)." Marko Polo was the greatest explorer of all time. More significant than Columbus, he opened to Europe all of Asia, including China, which in turn prompted the discovery of America. Marco Polo had a home on the Island of Korcula in Dalmatia, then a shipbuilding and merchant center of Dalmatia. The merchant and the noble class in Dalmatia did use two names, one Latin-Italian as citizens of Venice and their own Croatian name in their own circles. Bogdanich became Bogdaneo, Mladinich-Mladineo, Arnerich-Arneri and Glavinich-Capogrosso. Some simply used the Latin-Italian meaning of their name, such as Cvietkovich-Florio, Lupis-Vukasinovich or Polo-Pilich.

Genealogy The most prominent researcher and historian of Marco Polo, Sir Henry Yule, In his book Ser Marco Polo 1903, John Murray, London drew a genealogical chart of the Polo Families on pages 5O6-507. Marco's daughter, Moreta, married Dolfln; daughter, Fantina, married Bragadin. Vinko lvancevic in his article "Stone Carved Coats of Arms on Korcula" in Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences, No. 381-1978 has the Illustrated Coats of Arms of Dolfin and Bragadin. On the same, the wife of Marino Gradenigo chooses as her executors, "My mother Dona and my uncle (Barba) Ser Marco Polo." Gradenigo Coats of Arms are also carved in stone on Korcula. She also used the term Barba for uncle, this is Dalmatian dialect for uncle. Zio means uncle In Italian. Bragadin is cited on page 125 In History of Medieval Croatia by Guidescu as a Croatian. Marco's genealogy also listed a brother married to a Sagredo-this Sagredo is registered in the Dalmatian nobility and states In German: "Welches aus Sebenico stammt" or originated in Sibenik. It is significant in his genealogy the association with Korcula and Dalmatia. The Croatian Census of Population for 1948 lists DEPOLO (De-of Polo) on the Island of Korcula with 40 individuals in 15 families and the city of Drnis, Dalmatia approximately 20 kilometers from Sibenik (the origins of Polo) has over 25 families with more than 130 individuals named PILICH. Polo is found in only two families far to the north. Courtesy of the Croatian Genealogical and Heraldic Society.

Sjor Adam S. Eterovich Amerikonac (6) read the assertion properly - i stated that his father didn't visit the city of Venice not only once. (7) again, read the assertion properly. I stated that he called himself being Venetian born or bread. You just proved my view that others sticked to his name "de Venetia". It started with that and ended in falsification of history saying he was born in Venice, what could be truth, but weak posibility for it. No point. There is not a single proof of existence of Polo family in Venice before XIII century and they are at that time rich and established merchants in Korčula.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think the fact that there are (or were) a few dozen Croatians named Polo can be used to support the Croatian origin theory at all. Take a look here and search the name Polo: the vast majority of Italians called Polo is around Venice. According to this source there are 1104 Polos in Italy, not many, but probably more than in Croatia. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
1104 Polo, but also 167 de Polo, 369 di Polo, 113 di Pol, 13 Depolo, 3 Dipolo and 725 Pol. Last but not least: 383 Marco Polo.-- (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both, but is there a better fact to support the allegation that he was Venetian? Obviously not. The sole reason for stating him as Venetian is because it was written before and not because there are proofs for that.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Why is Italian nationality included in brackets after Venetian? Don't see any link with these nationalities.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(Oh noes, this again xP) The simple fact is, we can only speculate as to his "nationality", if it makes sense at all to talk about "nationalities" in the freakin' Middle Ages. Pretty much everybody agrees that he is from the territory of the Venetian Republic (in that Korčula is included there), but as to his "nationality" - who knows? He was a citizen of Venice, but again, his ethnic background is unknown and it is very silly to even discuss "nationalities" in the Middle Ages. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying is non-existence of nationalities at that time. why is then Italian writen??? Croats and Croatian state existed since 9th century and the country was called Croatia - so people were Croatians, unlike Italians, because first state called Italy was founded in second half of 19th century. So, Italian he wasn't for sure. Though, he could have been Venetian.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
(Hammer, please completely disregard and immediately revert all comments by the two abusive IP sockpuppets. If I told you half the stuff these IPs were responsible for you'd request a semi-protection here. :)
The point is that his natinality is unknown. We can't write a positive statement on his ethnicity if all there is is speculation. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No one is gonna win this argument. Let's just change it to "Born in the Venician Republic". Brutal Deluxe (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

His nationality is quite well known. They were the Dalmatians in the Venetian documents, not Venetians. Their surname is Croatian: Pol - sea bird, they had 3 sea birds on their coat of arms. It was Croatian noble family from Šibenik. Exactly in 1254 when M.P. was born, Korčula was not territory of Venetian Republic! (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, I see there'is a contest about the best humorous performance.. fun! --Theirrulez (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The only error in the IP's statement was the link to Croatia, because Dalmatia was a different kingdom at that time. By family heritage, he was Dalmatian - but it was obvious, that he preferred to be identified as Venetian. (Not unlike the average Green card worker nowadays. ;-) ) --Danares (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo has always defined himself as Venetian (please read Il Milione before making comments). Polo (and not Pul)is indeed a Venetian/Italian surname. Venetians, like Sicilians, Romans or Genoese, are part of the Italian nation. The fact that he may be born in Korcula (although this information is promoted only in Croatia) does not make him Croatian. Was Kemal Ataturk Greek because he was born in Thessaloniki? Was George Orwell Indian because he was born in India? Clearly not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I made some small changes. Small improvements. I hope I will be welcome. --Davide41 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of Marco Polo's travels

Although scholars agree on Marco Polo's influence, there seems to some debate regarding the historicity of his travels, which the article currently fails to mention. There are apparently some distinguished scholar such as Frances Wood who believe that Marco Polo has never travelled to China but rather compiled his account from dairies and stories of other historic travellers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Korčula and location of birth

Independent of the question whether the Korčula hypothesis is notable enough to justify mentioning it here, the cited reference is clearly not reputable enough to be used here. I.e. for keeping Korčula in the article a better reference is needed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo's biographers usually point out that he was a merchant of Venice, as Marco Polo himself said in the introduction to his book, Description of the World. But there is no proof of this. In fact, it is more likely he was born on the Dalmatian island of Curzola [Korčula], which was then under Venetian control and which later became part of Yugoslavia. This fact is confirmed by a mid-fourteenth-century manuscript in the British Library.
Foster Stockwell, Westerners in China: a history of exploration and trade, ancient times through the present, pp.32-33, McFarland, 2003

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, that might lead to sufficient sourcing and if that's the case the middle school book by Burgan should be replaced by a more appropriate source.Unfortuntealy i do not have access to Stockwell's book, so I'd appreciate if you could provide some more details. In particular I'd like to know some info on the 14th century manuscript of the British library (title, author, lookup info), because if that is the "smoking gun" for Korcula it should ne mentioned in the sources of the article as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The link is here, unfortunately the author does not elaborate on the manuscript. There used to be an article, "Birthplace of Marco Polo", which stored an enormous amount of sources and info on all known theories accumulated over the period of almost a year. Somehow, however, it was wantonly deleted. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks somehow Google Books didn't let me access the page in my first attempt, but somehow your link did the trick. Replacing Burgan by Stockwell as a source might be an improvement already, but the fact that Stockwell does not specify the manuscript in the British library leaves me with a rather uneasy feeling. Stockwell doesn't seem to a be a distinguished historical scholar, whose word we simply might trust or take for granted for the time being. Keeping in mind that Korcula has been a disputed subject I think we still need a better reference like a book or paper from an established historic scholar or at the least the actual manuscript to which Stockwell is alluding to.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: the 151. IP belongs to the rather notorious Italian nationalist account, User:PIO/Luigi 28, banned a long time ago for sockpuppeteering and vandalism. His variable IP is difficult to block, so he simply disregards the efforts of the community to kick him out. The general policy is to revert any of his posts on sight as a deterrent. Since I played a part in reporting his sockpuppet account, he follows me about trying to make a nuisance of himself. Apologies for the inconvenience. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true, Mr. Direktor. Infostrada is the 2nd largest Italian internet provider. I have 151. but i am not this sockpuppet. Regards-- (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This thing keeps popping up, I propose we create an article ("Marco Polo's birthplace" maybe) detailing the dispute, where all valid theories are outlined and their likelyhood weighed up. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd support such a move provided somebody is willing to do some serious research regarding reputable sources, because imho it is not good enough if we just patch the sources together that have been referenced so far. The real problem is the current lack of reputable sources, i.e. we need to know how distinguished historian view the different theories.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are only historians entitled to have an opinion in this matter, which can be described in the article? --Danares (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Everybody may have an opinion but not every opinion matters for WP. Because WP is an encyclopedia not some wiki, blog or discussion forum for arbitrary exchange of opinions. Of course there are often reputable authors outside the original domain of some article that can be used as sources as well, but again if there's dispute the requirement for sources go up and it is simply common sense to consult domain knowledge and domain experts in such cases. In the same way we do not use religious scholars or astrologers as sources for astronomy and cosmology articles but physicists, and medical professionals on health topics rather than self proclaimed experts or gurus, we also prefer historians as sources for topics in history. A historian usually possess superior context knowledge to provide an educated opinion on some historical subject and the interpretation of concerned historical sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't ask, why we prefer historians as sources. My question was, why we cannot consider other sources at all, even under the condition that we attribute them exactly (as Brutal Deluxe mentioned: "X says Y"). Their opinions were never supposed to be presented as facts, but merely as what they are: relevant opinions. Does your last sentence imply that the context knowledge of non-historians is always inferior? --Danares (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course not "always" (no rule without exceptions) but usually. The issue is not with "X says Y" but more whether X is notable for the article and which Xs offers the most educated opinions for the article's topic. Also we need to make sure that "less educated opinions" do not replace facts which are actually known and to assess that properly we need to resort to historical scholars again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone want to use "less educated opinions" in order to replace facts? Some people would indeed like to see all the different opinions at least mentioned in the article, but only as long as they are attributed properly and perceived well enough to be relevant for us. Isn't that exactly what we call the NPOV, after all? Please consider reading Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:Truth, if necessary.
And regarding the "less educated opinions": is there actually any factual doubt, that the Croatian Tourist Board has decided (in 2007) to market its country under the slogan "Croatia: Homeland of Marko Polo"? --Danares (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, there is no doubt regarding the tourist boards'decisions, there is doubt regarding its historical claims and that is exactly a potential "less educated opinion"-scenario , even more so if historical scholars were to disagree, that's why need them to put such claims in context. The main purpose of this article is to provide readers with the actual known facts about Marco Polo's life and best educated conjectures for the unknown parts and that we get from historical scholars and not the Croatian Tourist Board. What the tourist board or similar institutions do belongs into a sections like "Marco Polo today" or "Marco Polo in popular culture", but in the description of Marco Polo's life it belongs only if there's notable backup by history scholars.
As far as the guidelines are concerned, if you think they mean that you can publish any opinion of whoever on whatever as long as it is properly attributed, then you misread them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see anyone suggesting, that the tourist board slogan was to be presented as historical fact, and have no objections whatsoever to put this advertising campaign into a section called "Marco Polo today". As the exact location of Marco Polo's birth has been debated for decades, we can (and should) at least provide the reader with a short overview of the origins these various theories had (and which of them is being preferred by most current historians).
JFTR: what if a theory is uttered by someone who cannot be described as a historian, but who has (exclusive) direct access to relevant documents?
Regarding your last sentence: please re-read my last comment and pay particular attention to as long as they are [...] perceived well enough to be relevant. I never claimed that any given fringe theory ought to be mentioned. --Danares (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Any theory relying on "exclusive" documents no matter whether the author is a historian or not has no place in WP, nor in the scholarly debate, since verification/providing evidence is a basic principle.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(exclusive) direct access to documents ≠ "exclusive" documents (as soon as these documents have been published) --Danares (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the opinion of the Korcula tourist board or other Croatian authorities would be relevant enough for such an article, after all it is they who are most actively spreading the Korcula theory. Lonely Planet's Croatia book also reports it as fact. WP is about verifiability, I don't see a problem with saying "X says Y" and then backing it up with a source. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
yes and no, those sources are definitely enough to provide notability, but they are of course not sufficient as sources for the content of a proper article on a history topic. We cannot write history articles based on travel guides, that's a no-go for an encyclopedia. Also we need proper sourcing from the historical scholars to avoid that such an article potentially degrades into an urban myth collection passed of as historical facts or as sound conjectures.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@danares: The discussion here in in danger to deteriorate into a usenet style debate, where the focus turn to personally being right on whatever, rather than focusing on the actual article issues. So let's get back to what matters directly for the article and the original point of the discussion (burgan as source for disputed biographical content).

  • Burgan is not a reputable enough as source for (sound) historical conjectures regarding Marco Polo's place of birth. The same seems to be somewhat true for Stockwell. So the part of Marco Polo's biography that deals with his place of birth needs better sourcing or if that's not possible simply drop all speculative theories.
  • Describing local promotions and the action of the croatian tourist board in a section entitled "Marco Polo today", "Marco Polo in popular culture" or even "Reception" is fine.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there any reasonable doubts about Moule / Protić Gardenal concerning Ramusio and Ljubić being the originators of the Venice/Korčula theories? --Danares (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Besides that, I completely support getting rid of all (contested) speculation in the introduction/biography part (see my corresponding proposal[37] in the German discussion) and put it into an own section "Speculation about Polo′s birthplace", where we can even differentiate between modern and historical myths. That ought to make it clear once and for all. --Danares (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I support the creation of such a section, a lot of discussion has taken place about all this, and even if 10% of it was used in the section, it would be pretty comprehensive. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As there are no objections, could someone be bold, please? --Danares (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to take the support for the section back: I've just remembered that it existed, and then was taken away when the article was spotlighted. It will have to be a new article, the plus side being that discussion on the birthplace will take place there and leave this article free for serious editing. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm being bold and going ahead with the article Marco Polo's birthplace. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Please make sure it contains some reputable scholarly sources as well to avoid that it becomes simply an uncrtical compilation of all theories regarding the birth place out there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Going shopping in a mo, and it's Friday night with the gf, so I'm going to publish it on my talk page, bear in mind that it's only a stub and I don't intend to do all the work myself. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, maybe you are not aware that an article on the birthplace controversy existed already and was deleted through an AfD process. As the proposed article keeps basically the same content, the proper way is first to file a deletion review on the topic. The argument remains the same as it was - the dispute can be sufficiently covered in two sentences and there is no need to have a separate article listing "proofs" from each side. So, redirecting the started article back here. --Tone 20:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense, hence I've reverted that. You might argue an article on the birthplace is not justified for whatever reason, then you can suggest another AfD, but the redirect makes no sense. Having Marco Polo's birthplace in the article namespace only makes sense if we actually offer a separate article with more detailed information. Any reader expects information on marco polo's birthplace in the article about marco polo, hence a redirect is not required.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I made a redirect as a courtesy not going to delete it as a G4. See, there has been a community consensus established that there should not be a separate article- If you want to change that, you should go through deletion review. --Tone 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No there was no community consensus for that, there was a consensus that the old article due to its content (potential POV and fringe stuff) was not appropriate. If you feel that's the case for the new one again, then we need another AFD, but as explained a Redirect makes no sense (nobody needs that entry in the name space to find the information on marco polo's birthplace in WP). No other biographic article has such redirect construct.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Origins of birthplace theories

  • the first person to publish Polos birthplace to be Venice was Giovanni Battista Ramusio, who based his theory on an alleged parental grandfather called Andrea Polo di San Felice, for whom (according to A. G. Moule: Marco Polo the Discovery of the World, London, 1938, p. 15, 16, 20, 527) no written evidence whatsoever seems to exist.
  • the first person to publish Polos birthplace to be on Korčula was Šime Ljubić: Dizionario biografico degli uomini illustri della Dalmazia, Vienna, 1856. According to Don Ivo Protić Gardenal (1921 in Blato – 2008 in Dubrovnik), Župnik of Blato between 1956 and 1995, Ljubić didn't provide any evidence either. --Danares (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

Marco Polo's birthplace

Not having read the whole discussion above, editors here should be advised of the existence of the above article. I'm guessing it's Content fork from here, because the Korčula hypothesis was blocked from this article. So I'm asking for more eyes on this. BECritical__Talk 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Marco Polo's birthplace

Although the recreation of Marco Polo's birthplace as a separate article is defended on its talk page, I think that the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthplace of Marco Polo that it is a content fork from this article still holds, and that there is no reason or need for a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless someone suddenly comes up with a lot more reliable sources busily discussing this issue, there's nothing that can't be covered in a paragraph in the main article. It's also extremely liable to be a POV fork. So overall, it should definitely be merged, and probably reduced to a small paragraph per WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure that a footnote is sufficient though. BECritical__Talk 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the one who recreated that article and I did not make a single edit there, however, that article has huge potential to grow since the debate on this person's early life has been rather extensive. The old deleted article was packed full of all sorts of sources, and there is no reason why the current article cannot reach that same level given the chance. Also, in your own words, Wikipedia's coverage of the issue would be reduced. Leave it be for a while and we'll see if it grows into an interesting article about a historical issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see a copy of that old article. Anyone willing to put it in my userspace? BECritical__Talk 17:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I took a brief look at the fringe theory guidelines, and it does seem to fill the criteria for inclusion as a stand alone article, but with even Bloomberg reporting a birthplace in Korcula as a fact, it has gone beyond that, and with so many sites and tourist guides reporting it as a fact too, a paragraph only in the main article might not be enough to settle the mind of most people interested in the truth on the matter (be that Venice or Korcula). I agree with DIREKTOR, the article has potential, and to my knowledge it does not have the POV issues of the old article. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is an interesting mention in Bloomberg. Do you see some real WP:RS which discuss the idea in any detail? And BTW, is there anything to say beyond a paragraph? It doesn't look that way to me. What do we have to say that we couldn't say in one paragraph on the main article? BECritical__Talk 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you're more than capable of sorting this out on your own, as you are clearly an authoritative expert and your word counts more than news organizations'. Go ahead, write the paragraph, delete the article. I'm here to inform and collaborate, not to face sarcasm and keep arguing with people. I did the bold thing and it hasn't worked, I've got just over 600 pages on my watchlist and this is taking up too much of my time. I won't be taking any more part in this discussion. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but I don't know what you are talking about re sarcasm. I wasn't being sarcastic. Bloomberg is fine, but I thought it was just one line? BECritical__Talk 20:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, I guess I'll do just that if no other editors object. Seems to me that all that needs to be said is that such an hypothesis exists and is claimed by so-and-so. BECritical__Talk 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really in favour of the merging. The article was explicitly designed to outsource details on the birthplace issue from the main article. It is a potentially contentious issue and an article that is likely to grow, while hopefully collecting appropriate reputable academic sources over time. All in all it is already/will be to big for a proper integration/merge into the main article. The other issue whether it will turn into a POV fork is something that needs to be discussed separately from the merging. Personally I'd give it some time to see how it will turn out.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an issue with the suspicious IP, it is practically identical as the IP of User:PIO which haunts enWiki very frequently. A checkuser might be in order. In any case a detailed review of the IP's edits should be undertaken.
You'll notice he's replaced "Croatian island of Korčula" with "Venetian island of Curzola" in a sentence referring to present-day context. He's also reworded the lead stating that Korčula is claimed as a birthplace by "some Croatian sources", in spite of the listed references, adding also the implication that these sources are doing so because of tourist income for the Republic of Croatia (i.e. "some Croats are saying this so that Korčula would have a few more tourists per year"). This is just at first glance. Brutaldeluxe's efforts have already come under attack by aggressive POV-pushing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is pushing what POV here. In any case none of those references are really sufficient, the article still needs proper academic papers by historians.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well the IP's basically pushing pro-Venice POV and introducing blatantly wrong info. E.g. the lead now says "some Croatian sources" invented the Korčula theory, when the article was basically created due to non-Croatian sources. I myself am staying away from the article (for the time being). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) is the applicable guideline. The first issue is why do we need to do this now. Obviously his birthplace has to be part of this article. Guidelines say that a spinout/spinoff happens when an article gets long. And WP:SIZERULE gives guidance on article size for a spinoff. The spinoff now was premature and unnecessary, and inevitably creates problems of synchronisation.Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well from the perspective of the Marco Polo article details on the exact place of birth are a minor almost irrelevant issue. Looking at the current sizes we have the Marco Polo's birthplace with 10kb and Marco polo with 30kb, hence merger with the current sizes seems to be out of the question. The Marco Polo article itself cannot spend 1/4 or more of its content on such a minor issue. Also it is worth to note that guidelines suggest, that from 32kb onwards (text only though) one should consider splitting the article. Both articles have a potential to grow and Marco Polo's birthplace is likely to grow further soon. Together they already have about 40k (with sources though).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Apparently they've revised the figure from 32kb to 40kb or there are different figures spread of various guidelines (not sure where i read it). In any case we have growing articles which are already near the ballpark number for justifying a split.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of this discussion this article is likely to stay/be a POV fork with little academic sourcing, which in my opinion could be summarized in a paragraph. So I'll just keep watching it for a while and see if it eventually has what it needs to remain a stand-alone article. Oh, and the guidelines for length of articles in kilobytes are roundly ignored, rightly in my opinion. Very few people have connection speeds of less than 3 kilobits a second, where page load times would become onerous. BECritical__Talk 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Low Bandwith is only one reason these size figures, there are others. Summarizing it as a shortened paragraph in the main article is not really solving the POV issue, because you just move it around. Instead of having a constant edit conflict in the main article, I'd rather wait for a while to see whether this turns into an reasonable article after all or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
As things are now we are seeing some stability and a stricter adherence to sources. The IP seems to have accepted that the Korčula hypothesis is not in actual fact a "hoax", and the article has been neatly reorganized into two main sections: the first representing the "traditional" view, the second representing the Korčula hypothesis.
Conflicts do not arise from the creation of a separate article, but rather from attempts to cover the birthplace issue in more detail. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The bigger issue is still existing lack of scholarly resources, that needs to be addressed in the long. Potentially POV pushing IPs are just a minor annoyance and on the central problem of the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The raison d'etre of the Marco Polo's birthplace article appears to be the rather dubious "Korčula hypothesis". Now, this does not seem to be of sufficient notability to be discussed in detail even in a "Marco Polo's birthplace" article. As far as I can tell, this is essentially an item of Croat crypto-nationalism, and would best be discussed at Croatian nationalism, with a brief mention at Korčula (already present). --dab (𒁳) 16:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Croatian crypto-nationalism"?? I myself have confronted Croatian nationalist POV-pushing on Wiki perhaps more than any other one user. The above post is nothing short of an offense to the efforts Brutal and myself have exerted on the new article. "As far as I can tell" is certainly a warranted addition to your sentence. You seem to have discovered the long-lost birthplace of Marco Polo, or least, that would be the only justification for your rather arrogant deus ex machina approach above.
Furthermore, since if I recall correctly you were active on the original article, you know full well that its "Korčula theory" section had dozens of sources.

Nicolo and Maffeo had established a trading outpost on the island of Curzola, off the coast of Dalmatia; it is not certain whether Marco Polo was born there or in Venice.
Cottie Arthur Burland, Werner Forman, The travels of Marco Polo, McGraw-Hill, 1970

Korčula is the reputed birthplace of the traveler Marco Polo in about 1254
The new encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 6, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2002

Marco Polo's biographers usually point out that he was a merchant of Venice, as Marco Polo himself said in the introduction to his book, Description of the World. But there is no proof of this. In fact, it is more likely he was born on the Dalmatian island of Curzola [Korčula], which was then under Venetian control and which later became part of Yugoslavia. This fact is confirmed by a mid-fourteenth-century manuscript in the British Library.
Foster Stockwell, Westerners in China: a history of exploration and trade, ancient times through the present, pp.32-33, McFarland, 2003

Marco Polo was born in 1254, most likely on the island of Korčula, in the Adriatic Sea.
Burgan, Michael, Marco Polo and the Silk Road to China, p.7, Compass Point Books, 2002

It also seems evident that the Department of Lexicography has records of a Polo family on the island of Korčula in the mid-13th century, as published in the Encyclopedia of the Lexicography Department. In short, I would advise you cease attempts to describe either hypothesis as a "scam" of some sort. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The bottom line is this: the birthplace of Marco Polo is unknown. The "Korčula hypothesis" is legitimate and in existence. It is not someone's fantasy or a scam - its in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for heaven's sake. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The first line might be correct, but about the rest i'm not so sure. afaik did the britannica remove the korcula claim. Whether it is mostly a "tourist scam" or not depends on detailed scholarly assessment that this article and as well as the birthplace article are still still missing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The "tourist scam" idea does not hold water. Korčula was proposed as the birthplace in the mid-19th century (tourism would be non-existent in Dalmatia until the mid-20th). And anyway, this could only benefit the town of Korčula itself, and that in a rather marginal way. Hardly the motivation for various Yugoslav scholars to actually fabricate data and risk careers over. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of the 19th century origin and that by no means disproves a potential "tourist scam" (note the quotes). As I said before the article still lacks reputable historical scholarly opinions and in doubt only they matter not all the inferior "sources" getting constantly referenced by either Korcula or Venedig promoters. Considering that this seems to going for a long time, I really wonder why nobody feeling so strongly on the issue started to provide some really convincing sources rather than all the circumstancial ones we have so far.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Supposed sources, supporting Korčula

  • Burland. He's a scholar, but an etnograpist (specialized in native Americans cilizations) and not an historcian[38]. It is no possible to check his book to verify his sources.
  • Stockwell: he presents an original and intersting claim, but without sources. See Brutal's comment here[39]
  • Burgman: he's a self declearing "writer for younger people" (LOL). His book about Polo is classified as a book of "Juvenile literature" (see back cover[40]. My comment: who introduced this "source" deserves a block!
  • Britannica: it is not a valid source, because the claim was removed. Why the claim was inserted and removed? Well, a very intersting solution is in this 2007 "RfC" (in which DIREKTOR played one of the main characters)[41]. In short: and IP user contacted directly Britannica. The authors of the article are two scholars. One is dead, the other wrote to be against the Korcula possibility. Britannica presented no evidences was for the claim. Few days after the "Korcula possibilty" was removed for ever from Britannica.

Conclusions: we have not a single valid source, supporting the Korcula possibilty.

Let me finally add that I am quite disappointed by the past behaviour of DIREKTOR. (I invite everybody to read the archives), not to say some of the old versions of Marco Polo article.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I seriously advise you to cease commenting on other users in any way, your success in causing the protection of no less than two articles a few days after your arrival here places you on thin enough ice as it is. I assure you, I am entirely indifferent as to your "disappointment" or any characterizations you may use to describe me.
Secondly, on Wikipedia we frown on the ridiculing of authors to achieve one's POV goals. More to the point, your attempts to discredit published scholars are 1) deceptive and 2) insignificant, if not appallingly arrogant to boot. Bear this in mind: your opinions on published scholars are completely and utterly insignificant (as are mine).
  • Burland. He's a published scholar, nothing more to add there. If you wish to discredit him as a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, you will need to present more than your own thoughts and opinions. You are not his peer in any way.
  • Stockwell. Again, a published scholar. His sources are unavailable to us because they are not on the internet. This is very far from an actual reason to discredit him as a falsifier.
  • Britannica. Kindly cease with outright lies and deliberate deception. You were fully informed that Britannica has not removed anything of the sort [42]. And the encyclopaedia generally avoids any claims as to the birthplace of Marco Polo, stating outright that "Little is known about Marco Polo’s early years", that he "probably grew up in Venice", and that "Korčula is the reputed birthplace of the traveler Marco Polo in about 1254".
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr. DIREKTOR the only responsible of the block is you and your edit war.I will resume your "reply" with the sentence you saynothing.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Your English seems to have deteriorated, I'm sorry but I cannot understand your post. If you yourself are having trouble with any of my posts, please feel free to ask for clarification on any point. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You was right. I wrote in a terrible way.... so I've corrected the sentence.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I am still unclear on your meaning? By "block" are you referring to the article protection? I do not recall anyone getting blocked? I am also unclear on the "saynothing" part, I certainly did say something. I essentially said that 1) a Wikipedia user does not have the "power" to discredit a published scholar on a whim, and 2) that Britannica has certainly not removed the Korčula hypothesis, as was your claim. Let me clarify:
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


The correct name of Marco's wife is "Donata". We have the original document of acceptance of the Donata's dowry in Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Canc. Infer., atti Domenico prete in S.Maurizio, b. 67, fasc. 2, prot. c. 25. Another source: here.--Presbite (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unknown birthplace (CN tags)

I have added the CN tags. This claim is not supported by a single source. Lacking of replies, I will remove the claim in 2 days.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I invite user Brutaldeluxe to avoid reverts. If he think the tags are a "POV", he may tell the reason here.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
What claim? There simply isn't a birth certificate that tells us where Polo was born. Simple. Check the archive, a consensus was reached and that is: Venetian Republic, locality unknown. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
And I add, Burgan might be a children's author, but he is a published source and his opinion, unlike yours, matters for the purpose of verifiability. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The first birth certificate was issued after Napoleon's time. The claim "unknown" is a personal research. We have hundreds of sources, stating that Marco Polo was "birth in Venice", including all the scholars. Where is the source claiming that the birthplace is "unknown"? I do not see it! Be so kind to provide it--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think that a footnote should solve the problem because one of the locations is much more widely accepted. WP:UNDUE, for that case. --Tone 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've protected the article because of the several reverts in the last two days so that you two can reach an agreement on the talkpage. Please do not think that my personal opinion on the topic influenced that decision. --Tone 18:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Sig. IP, with all due respect to your scholarly prowess, I must voice my doubts that you have discovered the long lost birthplace of Marco Polo. Please end this pointless line of discussion. The birthplace of Marco Polo is unknown. What you are doing here is little short of POV vandalism. Discussing this subject with Italian nationalists is quite pointless. Your content blanking will be reverted without fail. I should think you have been warned more than sufficiently [45][46][47][48][49]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I've warned other editors as well. Your warings and the warnings or Brutal. are meaningless. Your are both POV pushers. Provide sources please.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Tone: the 2nd location is not supported by anybody!--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)he
Now that I've taken admin action I can't take any position until the protection is set. Wouldn't be nice of me. Try WP:RFC. --Tone 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr IP, your entire argument is laced with illogical nationalist fervor. Tone down your rhetoric, please. Even if your simplistic, demonstrably false claims were true, a negative never proves a positive. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr. DIREKTOR: I've checked around your level of nationalistic fervor (and not only in the archive of this page), which awarded you with eight blocks[50]. Now: we have hundreds of sources, claiming "born in Venice", we have not a single source claiming "unknown place" (not to say "born in Korcula").--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It's the actual house/building/island we're discussing. Venice could mean the city, the islands in the lagoon, the republic. The actual place is unknown. That's what "unknown location in the Venetian Republic" refers to. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This is simply false, as stated in the discussion. Marco wrote he was "citizen of the city of Venice". He said his father went to "Venice" from "Soldaia" (another Venetian possesion) to meet their families, etc., etc. (not to say what Ramusio wrote). Anyway, if you claim that "Venice" means the "Republic of Venice" (a very original claim, I'd say), present sources. Because you failed with Burman (the writer for children, you have presented as a scholar...), may I suggest you the "Junior Woodchucks Guidbook"?;-)--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

User:IP IP Hurra!, I will not be drawn into a ridiculous discussion of this sort. Historians have absolutely NO evidence or concrete facts about the birth and early life of Marco Polo, we do not know where he was born, and we do not know when he was born - we can only guess. The best guess is Venice because he lived there as an adult, the second-best is Korčula, but they are both still only guessing. While I'm sure you yourself absolutely "know" for certain that it "must" have been Venice, these are indisputable facts and not something to be "discussed", certainly not by me.

I will add that these fantastic statements do thoroughly discredit you as an objective participant in this discussion, as if that were not redundant at this point. You have continuously throughout your involvement here perpetuated this entirely false argument that the "birthplace of Marco Polo is known and that it is certainly Venice", which I believe is a rhetorical ploy and an attempt at deliberate deception.
In the light of that as your main "argument", are you prepared to leave this discussion if it is established here that Marco Polo's birth and early years are indeed entirely unknown to scholars? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Repetition on: we have hundreds if not thousands of books about Marco Polo who say "born in Venice", including all the scholars. Where is the source claiming the birthplace is "unknown" and all the authors are wrong? Where is the source claiming that Korcula is not a legend, but something of possible? Find this sources or shut up!--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
As chidlish as I might sound when explaining this, it seems I have no choice but to actually waste my time and draw everything up.
  • 1) As is perfectly obvious to everyone and anyone but you, those sources which flatly state "Marco Polo was born in Venice" are superficially covering the issue by presenting as fact the main prevailing hypothesis about Marco Polo's birthplace. In the same way as the sources that simply state "Marco Polo was born in 1254" are making a generalization and superficially covering the issue of the date of his birth.
  • 2) Most importantly, there exists not a single solitary published work you can possibly quote here out of all your "tens of thousands of sources" that could conceivably back up the flat statement that "Marco Polo was born in Venice" with any primary source whatsoever - since no primary sources on the early life of Marco Polo are known to be in existence, immediately rendering said statement below the verifiability requirements of WP:V.
  • 3) The sources mentioning the Korčula hypothesis are listed. I am afraid you shall have to learn to live with the fact that you do not get to "proclaim" these sources "invalid" on your whim.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr Spock could not have put it more logically. Seen as we're never going to stop arguing at this rate, I can only suggest that we change it to "assumed to be born in Venice" or variations thereof, and I would insist on the "assumed" or a synonym, if only to get the block lifted so others can edit this article. Take a look at Shakespeare's Birthplace, he is assumed to have been born there (with no evidence at all). Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Brutal.: You miss the point. It is not sure if this "specific building" is Shakespeare's home. Nobody says that is born in a unknown place in Europe, maybe Stratford-upon-Avon with (let's say) Messina as the 2nd option.... Look here:Shakespeare's life
DIREKTOR: ALL the books about Marco, say Venice, because it is obvious from primary sources. So obvious that not a single book comments the Kurcola "theory", even to say it is an hoax. But according to you they are "superficial":-) All the scholars of this World are "superficial", and you DIREKTOR, are the first man in the World to understand a so obvious think...
PS each time I read your "list" I piss in the pants for laughing... What's your next source, the Mickey Mouse's magazine?--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll put it down as lack of understanding of the language, but this is the second time IP has come up with a trolling comment in the same discussion, using his single purpose account. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
@"ALL the books about Marco, say Venice, because it is obvious from primary sources."
User:IP IP Hurra!, in response to your above statement, may I then challenge you here and now to present a single solitary (hitherto unheard-of) primary source on Marco Polo's birth, as quoted in those uncounted swarms of secondary sources you call on without fail? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Someone can present a reliable source about the controversy over the Marco Polo's birthplace?-- (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, are we playing word games now? The subject of the article is not a "controversy", the article is merely a more in-depth look at what various (reliable!) sources think the birthplace might be. Simple as that.
You are also ignoring all above posts. Do you have a primary source on Marco Polo's birthday? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We are not historians, and here the original research are prohibited in WP. We must simply record what historians have written on this topic, as required by wiki rules.--Presbite (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. And that is what we are doing. I understand we're seeing an apologetic shift in argument here, but presenting the views of historians is the whole point of the article. Nobody is denying that Venice is generally thought of as Marco Polo's birthplace, the article merely explains that his birthplace is unknown and that there is an alternative. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As for Christopher Columbus (see Origin theories of Christopher Columbus), I suggest: Even though all the chronicles and the overwhelming majority of modern and past historians state he was from Venice, in present-day Italy, a minority of scholars (names in note) have advanced alternative hypotheses.--Presbite (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on that statement, except for IP IP who refuses point blank any such mention. The articles are locked in a version he doesn't agree with, so he's gonna have to compromise. Thanks for linking the article on Columbus, it's interesting and dispels any accusations of fringe or UNDUE that have been leveled at the birthplace article. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think the Korcula-theory is false. Who invented this theory is the Dalmatian Sime Ljubic, who wrote his book in 1856, when he supported the theory of the existence of the "Dalmatian Nation" as mixture of Italian and Slavic people (just read the introdution of his book, in Italian). He wanted to enhance this theory in every way, and so spoke of Korcula as birthplace of Marco Polo. About ten years later, he changed his mind, believing that the Slavic-speaking people of Dalmatia were Croats. The Venetian-thesis - maybe you know it - is supported by Marco Polo himself, who claims that he, his father and his uncle were Venetian citizens (the inhabitants of the Venetian dominions could not acquire the Venetian citizenship - in Venice they were two citizenship: de extra and de intus - simply by residence in the city), and also by the contents of the last will of Marco Polo's uncle, Marco Polo the Elder (I can explain, if you want). All the historians support the Venetian-theory, without exception, and also the overwhelming majority of Croatian historians. There is no birth certificate of Marco Polo, but the Korcula-theory is supported also by some ridiculous arguments. For example, someone of the Croatian scholars states that the surname "Polo" derived from word "Pol": "chicken" in Italian and also in Dalmatian language. But even the most ignorant scholar knows that "Polo" derives from the name "Paul". Also today in Venice we have Campo San Polo, the sestiere of San Polo and the church of San Polo. Obviously we are not talking about chickens...--Presbite (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Brutal: I can talk for myself, thank you. I agree with Presbite. But what to do with intro?--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Presbite, this has been discussed extensively in the past, and I agree with your POV and it would be wonderful if you could provide sources to back what you wrote, but yes, the Korcula theory is probably ridiculous, but it exists (it's published and it means more than your opinion) and we have to document it, if only to pick it apart (Knez and Zorzi are awesomely good sources for this), the thing is that we still do not have a place and date of birth, for all we know he could have burst out of his mother's womb in the year 1230 shouting "Aaargh! We wish them Turks Died!!!! (and I absolutely stick to this version, because to my knowledge, this is history, history the Italian way, the Croatian way, Marco Polo smashed the chest of the ant invader and sent his emissaries to the Orient while riding a camel that could ride to the moon in two hours, milking the breast of wikipedia while searching about Venetian Space people travelling to another universe, close to the speed of Croatian nationalism, hell shit, these Croatians are stealing our history just by asking questions, we are stardust, we are rainbow, we are golden, we are Italians who like the Polo mint, we are Croatians who like the Polo bints, and we'll jump into the pocket of a mongolian goat, a goat who only gives milk if it is hit by an Italian Klhuquel from a Croatian Klhuquel. The Shamones are with us, do not disagree, we are the Cool) :I need a break. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)t
Suggestion for the break (it seems too hot;-))...
Brutal. I shall repeat myself. I agree that this K. bullshit "theory", shall be documented, but to say "unknown place" it's just like to say that all the scholars are wrong, in this specific problem. And "personal researches" seem to be forbidden here (see: Wikipedia:No_original_research- -IP IP Hurra! (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Brutal. There is also someone who says that Marco Polo was born in Calvi in Corsica. Someone also wondered: [ where was Barack Obama born]? But there is no information about "alternative theories" in WP article. As you can see, there is a selection of information. This article repeat the "Korcula-theory", born in 1856, then forgotten for a century and resumed only in the 90s thanks to scholars of the caliber of Zivan Filippi, a tour operator on the island of Korcula. Anyone know the name of a single professor of medieval history expert of Marco Polo, who supports the Korcula-theory? In conclusion, until today this is not a topic of academical debate. I just want to say that if you want to include this information here, should be clear that the Korcula-theory has been proposed by Ljubic and then by some non-academic writers, mostly Croatian, like the Croatian Tourist Board.--Presbite (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Presbite, the problem again is that Venice as the birthplace is pure speculation, equally verifiable as any other claim. We're making this more complicated than it is. Simply add the statement that "the majority of historians are of the opinion that Venice is the birthplace" ("opinion", once again due to no primary sources) and we can finally end this charade. My points are that 1) it must be 100% clear these are all unverifiable opinions we are talking about, and 2) no need for POV wording like "the Overwhelming Glorious and Supreme Majority are absolutely certain They know this and that", just say majority opinion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
YAWN! Who says it is just an "opinion". You? Have you done a personal research in about 5000 books, or more? Sadly, it would be not valid (Wikipedia:No original research);-) Anybody did the research instead of you? (that would be a great source! Why do not you present it?). I inform you that about 5000 books or more (vs. 0) makes the claim verifiable (read here).
BTW, are you so sure to be born in SPLIT? Your mum says so, but it just her opinion. I would write in your page "according to Direktor's mum, he was born in Split. But the "opinion" that D. was born in Messina, shall be inserted as well.;-)--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: Anyway I would write "according to historians Venice is the birthplace... " (and I would delete the word "opinion", until D. does not present evidences, that historians have no primary sources).--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I'm amazed these constant insults and obscene remarks have not gotten you blocked as yet. I will be posting a report on your behavior and a long-overdue WP:SPI request. You will be notified in time, presumably so that you may respond with some massive essay describing your thoughts and feelings on me, my mother or whatever else.
As for the only remotely sensible statement above, I have already challenged you some dozen times to show any genuine primary source on the birth of Marco Polo whatsoever, that is quoted in one of your throngs of secondary sources. Quite simply, without primary sources, historians cannot possibly do anything other than present their professional opinions on the subject. I would expect these basic concepts of scientific literature might finally sink-in after all this time. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
D. I was just joking, and you know I've never aim to be offensive;-) Anyway, if you become hungry, I'm sorry for this...
Now, Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. Here we have all secondary source claiming that Marco was born in Venice, and that is enough. I've not to provide any primary sources at all! If you claim that 5000 (or more) historians worked without using primary sources for their claims (according to you "opinions"), you have to present a VERY good source. --IP IP Hurra! (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a birth certificate, User:IP IP Hurra. Do you have Marco's? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
OK: "the majority of historians are of the opinion that Venice is the birthplace...". But you - or someone else - can tell me what are the historians in the past five decades who have supported the Korcula-theory? I'm talking of historians: no fiction writers or something similar. So far, I've found only historians who speak of Venice, but (apart Ljubic in 1856) nobody speaks of Korcula. Who is "the minority of historians"?--Presbite (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Instead of going in cycles, maybe we could find a compromise solution here. What has been already suggested above: for the infobox, we add "presumably Venice" with a footnote. In the childhood section, we either mention Korčula as an alternative hypothesis or we mention it in a footnote. Nobody objects that this theory exists and is supported by some people, the only question is how much weight should it have in the article. --Tone 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd go for "presumably Venice" in the infobox and a footnote mentioning Korcula in this article, no more than that in this one per policy, while keeping the mention in the birthplace article as it is. Now that IP has been banned I hope we can get on with editing. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't imagine why a historical unknown should be represented as anything other than that which it is. I'd go for simply "unknown" in the infobox. Inofoboxes are bad as it is without sporting presumptions. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd go for "presumably Venice" in the infobox with a footnote, and in the childhood section mention Korčula as an alternative hypothesis. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
So far as we know, the birthplace is not "Venice" or "Korčula", but "unknown". Everything else are assumptions that should not be presented in an over-simplified manner anywhere, least of all in infoboxes. Its comfortable to just forget we don't lack information an pretend the situation is one way or the other, however - that's POV by definition. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
So far as we know, almost all historians specialized in "Marco-Polo-things" speak of Venice as birthplace (from Yule & Cordier to Zorzi, from Jennings to Bartoli, from Humble to Bergreen, from Butler to Miles etc. etc. etc.). This is a simple fact, that would be absurd to hide in an encyclopedia. I repeat my question: in the last fifty years, who are the historians specialized in "Marco-Polo-things", who speak of Korcula? One name, at least?--Presbite (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No argument there, but the point is that they speak of Venice as the possible birthplace. And frankly I'm sick of this repeating false dichotomy: even if we knew for certain that Korčula is not the birthplace, Venice would not get "promoted" by default. I say again, I will not be drawn into a apointless argument along those lines. I'm not here to "defend" Korčula, I don't even like the town, I'm here trying to prevent POV suppositions based on "nationalist pride" from being entered into a Wikipedia article as virtual fact. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think we should criticize the historians, but to report what they write. Choose anyone of the most experienced in "Marco-Polo-things" and copy what he says. Maybe we should also add that no one historian has ever analyzed the "Kurcola-theory" in a scientific way.--Presbite (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, the article is fine now. It says "presumably Venice" and that is exactly what most sources say, "presumably Venice". And the footnote mentions Korčula because this theory exists as well. That's it. No need to waste more time on this as it is a settled issue, regarding the article. Now, on the other hand, do we need an article about birthplace at all when we have all relevant information here? That's another question. I still think we don't need it. --Tone 14:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Ooops! Sorry, I did not even look at the article, but the discussion page. I agree with you: we don't need it.--Presbite (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Marco Polo's burial place

Ther is a much here on Marco Polo's birthplace, but what about his burial place? Some think it is San Lorenzo, some think it is at the no longer extant San Sebastiano, and others at San Marco on Riva degli Schiavoni, but the exact site of the grave is unknown. Maybe a note by San Lorenzo saying that the exact site of Marco Polo's burial place is unknown? Kebeta (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember where I read it, but his remains were lost during the rebuilding of the church he was buried in. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are thinking of San Lorenzo, which is generally accepted, and that church is mentioned in the article. But from the article the reader would except his tomb in that church, and it isn't there. Maybe it would be good to wrote that his remains were lost during the rebuilding of the church? Kebeta (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Non so se c'è il corpo, la chiesa è stata oggetto di gravi vandalismi con l'arrivo di Napoleone e l'instaurarsi della muncipalità democratica. Un pò come le chiese in Francia con la rivoluzione. Il popolo era affamato di cose di valore.

Andriolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


Will somebody think of adding Uncharted 2 to the list? It's heavily based on Marco Polo's journeys and would probably be of interest to a younger generation just discovering the wonders of Marco Polo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. Work on the overall structure first. Section headings; are the sections too short to warrant a section of their own? Can it be restructured better?
  2. references - utterly critical
  3. Check all the links; are they appropriate; are they redirects; if so, fix ‘em. Disambigs need disambiguating. Don’t WP:OVERLINK - remove common terms; only link to relevent stuff
  4. Check all the pictures for suitable licencing
    Only concern is the lack of information about File:Marco Polo. Map of explore.jpg
  5. Where was he buried? Resolve apparent contradiction.
  6. Clarify dates (new style/old style). Is the window for when he could have died a few months, or a year and a few months?

Voyage to Sri Lanka

I can't edit the article, just says "view source." So can someone incorporate this article on his 1284 voyage to Sri Lanka? 1284 Yuan expedition to Sri Lanka

Redtumor (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


The word 'admiral' is misspelled in the third paragraph of the section "from childhood through to Genoese captivity".

I would have changed it myself, but the article is "semi-protected".

Willcwhite (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Marco Polo was NOT 'Italian'

Why is Marco Polo referred to as an 'Italian' in this article when Italy did not come into existence as a national state until 1861 when it was artificially created out of several ethnically diverse territories and peoples. Using this type of terminology is akin to labelling him an EU citizen as he 'may' have been born in a region in what is now part of the EU. At best Marco Polo should be referred to as a Venetian. This is the correct terminology as it takes into consideration the various conflicting claims as to his birthplace whether it be the city of Venice or the Island of Korcula, (which although is ethnically Croatian) was at the time, part of the Venetian empire.

Modern Italy is one of Europes most ethnically diverse states, so lets STOP labelling individuals as being 'Italian' who lived in periods prior to the creation of Italy in 1861. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

By God what is wrong with you, states home to a single ethnic group are not terrible evils and I'm certain that Marco Polo would have wholly identified himself as Italian. Infact, the Italian diaspora was much larger during his time than it is to day! You'll be also shocked to hear that only the sourthern regions of Italy have shown signs of 'foreign' genetic material and even this is minimal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The poster above you is correct nevertheless, WP strives for historical accuracy rather simplified and potentially false descriptions and venetian is certainly the accurate description. Also I don't see what "'foreign' genetic material" (whatever that is supposed to be) has to do with anything.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a big mistake. If the Italian state is existing only since 1861, people living in Italy considered themselfes Italian well before the reunification. Just have the time to read Dante or Petrarca and you will discover that they felt themselves as Italians. So, before saying that an article is wrong, please take time to look for document. Wikipedia is a serious tool, not a game for nationalistic issues.--Simone976 (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

  • The Italian language, i.e. Tuscan or Roman, was then a sort of lingua franca among the Genoese, Tuscans, Corsicans, Venetians, Neapolitans, Umbrians, Romans, and Sicilians who met outside of their common homeland, which already had a well-defined traditional and literary identity, but no political unity. --Davide41 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth

Marko Polo was born on a Croatian island, Korcula (cro. Korčula) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is completely false. Marco Polo was born in Venice by a venetian family, as all historians have ever written. Curcola (later Korcula), that was anyway at that time a venetian (and not croatian) island, was never named in the Polo family's records; all these documents show without any doubt the Polo were a fully venetian (italian) family. That Marco Polo was a "croatian" is only a ridiculous lie made up by the fanatic croatian nationalists. --Lord Horatio Nelson (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree! Marco Polo was first of all Venetian, then Italian. Croatia has nothing to see with him !!--Simone976 (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
...and meanwhile: Croatia's ex-president is invited to open the Marco Polo museum in China... Mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The Chinese view, in English Mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Scholars from all over the world agree that Marco Polo was Venetian. The myth of Polo has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. Marco Polo Croatian ? Then Leopold Ružička is Italian. --Davide41 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fra Mauro map

Shouldn't the Fra Mauro map be turned 180 degrees to its originally intended orientation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has become extremely unproductive and has no direct connection with the article as Marco Polo's nationality is stated nowhere. Use the talkpage to discuss the article. --Tone 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

marco polo is born on island korcula, croatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Marco Polo...maybe a Dalmatian Croat...but definately a Venetian...and definatly NOT an 'Italian'

Italy has never been a home to a "single ethnic group", Italy is today as it has always of Europe's most ethnically diverse regions. Your typical southern 'Italian' today (being a mixture of Arabic, Greek, North African, Norman French etc) has about as much in common genetically with your typical Northern 'Italian' (being a mixture of German, Slovenian, Croatian, Celtic etc) as they both do with an average person from China. The absurd myth that modern 'Italians' are a single ethnic group directly descended from the ancient Romans was racist propaganda promoted by Musolini and should have been buried with the rest of his facist fantasies.

Prior to the artificial creation of the modern Italian state in 1861, the term 'Italian' was simply a regional identifier, NOT an ethnic description. It was only after 1861 that the term 'Italian' became as it is today, purely a description of nationality, that is, a person that resides in or holds citizenship of the modern Italian state. There has NEVER ever been an 'Italian' ethnicity...NOT today and NOT even 2000 years ago etc.

The modern Italian language is also NOT evidence of an 'Italian' ethnicity due to the simple fact that it was NOT spoken by the majority of peoples residing in the Italian penisular prior to 1861 when it was chosen and introduced as the official language of the modern Italian state. As for the arguement that the Genoese, Tuscans, Corsicans, Venetians, Neapolitans, Umbrians spoke latin based languages, the truth is, so do the Romanians, Spanish, and french etc...does that also make them 'Italian'?

Finaly, there is NO direct conclusive evidence telling us where Marco Polo was born, be it in Korcula or the city of Venice. So the claims that Marco Polo was a "croatian" is only a ridiculous lie made up by the fanatic croatian nationalists could also be applied to Italians who claim that he was 'Italian' are also a ridiculous lie made up by Italian racial bigots and facists.

It would help if you drop "genetic ethnicity" stuff, since nobody but you is talking about that.
The argument is whether there was a something like culutural identity that could be called italian and the italian language and its dialects are an important component of that. And as far as the classification of languages is concerned we don't have to speculate there, there ample academic literature on that topic and according to that afaik the italian dialects form their own distinct subgroup in the romance languages.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Kmhkmh,

But I don't buy into your 'Cultural Identity' arguement for the simple fact that there is NOTHING today or in Marco Polo's time that would even come close to being recognised as a common 'Cultural Identity' encompassing all of the diverse peoples and ethnicities of the Italian peninsular. Tell me, what does your typical Arabic, Greek, Albanian, North African, Norman French descended Southern Italian have in common with your German, Slovenian, Croatian, Celtic descended Northern Italian? The answer is not much...thats why there are so many regional successionist and autonomist movements in Italy today. Perhaps, if people starting recognising and respecting ethnic and regional differences in Italy today then maybe Italy won't breakup and become the next Yugoslavia in the future. The reason I mentioned 'ethnicity' was because people seem to confusing it with other concepts such as 'nationality' and 'regional identification'.

I also think your language arguement is also flawed for the reasons mentioned previously. Language alone is not evidence of a common 'cultural identity' have to look to what the people themselves felt. It is clear as day that prior to the creation of Italy in 1861 the various peoples of the Italian peninsular saw affinity with their own local regions and ethnic groups and not to any artificial non-existant notion of being a related 'Italian' people. As I wrote before, prior to the creation of Italy in 1861, the term 'Italian' existed only as a regional identifier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If M Luther was German Marco Polo Was Italian of course

In the Middle Ages Germanic people (Lombards) invaded all Italy ( not only the north...) exept Rome and...Venice!...(Venice remained "Roman-Byzantine"). But I believe that these Balkanian theories about ethnicity must not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

All great European Nations have ethnic and regional diversity: France Spain UK Italy and even Germany!There is no difference. Bavarians were not identical to Prussians: they had different dialect different State and different facial features...The actual Germany was celtic before to became Germanic...and it was invaded by Romans Huns Hungarians!UK was invaded by romans germans normands!Spain was invaded by Celtics Romans Germans Arabians!France was invaded by Romans Germans Normands and Arabians! In Alsace people speak a German dialect, in Bretagne they speak a celtic dialect and in Corsica people speak an Italian dialect!...Napoleon was not French? Really I Think that these stupid theories about ethnicity must not be tolerated on Wikipedia especially if some people write this because political or ethnic hate...

Nations exist because language culture and traditions not DNA! Every nation has a specific History of course: before unification Italian identity was mainly represented by the Roman past (Italia) by Italian language by Roman Catholic religion and by culture in general (sculpture painting architecture poetry and music), but Italy was unified only in nineteenth century like Germany. So if M. Luther and J S Bach were Germans Marco Polo was Italian it is normal.-- (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Whether you like it or not, ethnicity does exist and its not just some 'Balkanite theory' as you call it. Ethnicity is relevant to this discussion because some have labled Marco Polo as being an 'Italian' despite the fact that he lived almost 600 years prior to the creation of the modern Italian state. This claim incorrectly infers that there was some identifiable 'Italian' ethnic group prior to the creation of the Italian state in 1861 when we know that this is NOT correct. It seems that merely pointing out this obvious fact drives Italian bigots and racists crazy. As I said before, there is no direct conclusive evidence stating the exact location of Marco Polo's birth, be it the city of Venice or the island of Korcula (which was part of the Venetian empire at the time), the fact is he would have identifed himself as being VENETIAN and not 'Italian' as Italy would not exist until 600 years AFTER his death.

You stated that 'Nations exist because of Language, Culture and Traditions'. This again is incorrect, nations exist as a result of either ethnicity or political ideologies. For instance there are nations that are ethnically based nations (Ireland for example) and there are nations that were artificially created comprising widely diverse ethnic populations such as Italy based on political ideologies (Garbaldi's 'Italianism' etc). The fact that Italy today has so many successionist and regional autonomist movements such as Lega Nord, Free Padania movement, South Tyrolean Freedom party, Sardina Natzione, Movement for the Independence of Sicily, Movimento per le Autonomie, Autonomist Trentino, Fronte Indipendentista Lombardia, Fédération Autonomiste, Stella Alpina Valle d'Aosta, Noi Sud – Libertà e Autonomia etc, shows that 'Italianism' is not a universally excepted ideology in Italy today.

You also stated that 'Italian identity' was mainly represented by the Roman past (Italia), by Italian language, by Roman Catholic religion and by culture in general. The is an aburd claim for several reasons. Firstly, most of Europe has a Roman heritage and past, not just the 'Italians'. Its the same story with Catholism as well, its followed by most of Europe. The various peoples of the Italian peninsular may have shared many cultural aspects, but they still idenified with their own ethnic or regional group and saw others as being foreign. Its ironic that many Italians lable Marco Polo as an 'Italian' when even today, the region of his birth has sporned so many independance and seperatist movements wanting to break away from Italy.

Venetian Political Parties:

Forum of the Venetians, Future Veneto, LLega Autonomia Veneta, Lega Lombardo Veneta, Liga dei Veneti, Liga Federativa Veneta, Liga Nathion Veneta, Liga Veneta, Liga Veneta Repubblica, Liga Veneta Serenissima, Liga Veneto Autonomo, Lion of Saint Mark, North-East Project, Party of the Venetians, Raixe Venete, Union of the Venetian People, Venetian Agreement, Venetian Most Serene Government, Venetian National Party, Venetian People's Movement, Venetian People's Unity, Venetians Movement, Veneto Autonomous Region Movement, Veneto for the European People's Party, Veneto Freedom, Veneto Padanian Federal Republic, Veneto State

The claim the Marco Polo was an 'Italian' was a favourite of Musolini and his facist and bigoted cohorts. Lets bury this racist and chauvanistic garbage once and for all. Marco Polo was a VENETIAN...NOT 'Italian'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Italian?Very strange...

what you say is non-sense.The percentage of votes of all those small venetian parties is 2%.... Northen League is not a regional Party of Venice, it is a National Party also present in the far south of Italy (Lampedusa)...Northen League takes a lot of votes yes, but the argument of election campaigns of Northen League are immigration, security and taxes (fiscal federalism), Northen League has never done an election campaigns to divide Italy...I 'm sorry, never. In Italy ther are not different nationalities like Catalans and Basques in Spain or Welsh and Scots in UK...just south tirolers are certainly a different nationality.In Italy there are many different regional identities that is true, like in Germany.

You say that many countries were Roman provinces, it is true, but Italy was not a Roman province! Italy was a homeland of all roman citizens ...but obviously you don't know the history of Roman Italy (Roman Italy is called ITALIA in English like in Latin and in Italian, "ITALIA").

It is not an ideological fact, it is an historical fact: Dante Petrarch Machiavelli Galileo Giotto Leonardo Michelangelo saw themselves as Italians and you can not change that.This is universally know. Great German composers born before 1870 are still Germans: Bach Beethoven Wagner.Italians also: Scarlatti was Neapolitan and Italian Rossini was "Roman" and Italian Verdi was Lombard and Italian and Vivaldi was Venetian and Italian...and of course Vivaldi s Operas were all written in Italian and never in venetian dialect. Italian language was used throughout Europe for the Opera and music in general, I can not imagine that all people over Europe used a language of a people that didn't exist! It is ridicolous.

But if it is accepted that Vivaldi was Italian, why it is forbidden to write that Marco Polo was Italian? It is very strange... -- (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


In many parts of Italy today, the majority of the people identify with their own region or ethnic group before they identify themselves as being 'Italian'. This goes to prove that the 'Italianist' ideology is not as strong as you would like to make out. Instead of taking an extreme 'Italianist' viewpoint where everybody born in the Italian peninsular is automatically 'Italian' even if they were born hundreds of years before the nation of Italy even came into extistance, don't you think it would be more beneficial for your country if you recognise the regional and ethnic diversity of Italy. It is this extreme 'Italianist' viewpoint that has pushed many people into supporting the many successionist and autonomist groups and political parties in Italy today. I myself feel strongly about this issue as it has effected my family directly. My grandparents were murdered by Musolini facists for refusing to accept 'Italianist' ideology and become 'Italians'. The fate of my grandparents and millions of others all around the world is the reason why any extreme nationalist viewpoint, not just 'Italianism' should be shunned whenever it occurs.

A far as history goes, you claimed that Roman citizenship was afforded only to the population of 'Italia' (the Italian peninsular). This is simply NOT correct. The ruling classes of the Roman provinces were almost always afforded full Roman citizenship. This policy was further expanded by the The Edict of Caracalla in 212 which afforded ALL free men of the Roman empire automatic citizenship. This is one of the reasons that many of the most important Roman Emperors were NOT even native to the Italian peninsular at at. Therefore most European peoples have a right to claim the Roman legacy as part of their heritage just as much as any Calabrian, Silcian, Lombard, Neapolitan etc who now may happened to call themselves 'Italian'.

You also stated that the "Italian language was used throughout Europe for the Opera and music in general" and used that fact to base your assumption that Vivaldi was 'Italian' because he wrote his music in the Tuscan language (now called 'Italian') instead of his own native Venetian language. Well Mozart for example also wrote a great deal of his music in 'Italian'...does that mean he was 'Italian' also? Sadly. I have heard Italianist extremists making this claim.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic due to the fact that the question of Marco Polo's origins have been hijacked by Italianist extremist racists and bigots. Marco Polo was what he was and nothing more, a Venetian born 600 years prior to the creation of the modern Italian state. He was a VENETIAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Marco Polo was Italian!

I am very sorry if your grandparents were killed by Mussolini. Actual Italy is completely different from Mussolini times.Italians in general are a peaceful and tolerant people, certainly we are "latin", sometimes we get angry, speak loudly but we are a Christian and tolerant people.

You say: "in Italy people identify themselves whit their region before they identify themselves as being Italians". I agree, it is true, me too! We are Lumbards Tuscans Romans...but we are also Italians! Dante (the greatest Italian poet) certainly considered himself as Florentin, but also as Italian. If you read the Divine Comedy you can read many sentences about Italian spirit (Oh serva Italia di dolore ostello, non Donna di Province ma bordello!).Dante was born in the thirteenth century, the same century of...Marco Polo!

Really I don't understand your objections: you say, "Edict of Caracalla"....but I said that Italia was not a Province! Even after 212 Italy was never considered a Province but always the heart of the Empire whit a different status. In the third century Milan became capital of the Roman Empire, in the fourth century Ravenna became the last capital of the Western Empire...You say, "Mozart wrote his Operas in Italian". I know.All composers at the time wrote their Operas in Italian: Haendel Mozart Haydn etc but I wrote also that it is impossible to believe that all these people used a language of a people that didn't exist! Can you understand? Even before the unification of Italy Italian was the official language of all Italian States ( including the Republic of Venice of course).

Finally. I 'm not nationalist. Italian nationalist think that ancient Romans and the modern Italians have the same character for isn't true, after 2000 years we are different: Ancient Romans loved War and Modern Italians love spaghetti:).I believe in friendship and unity among peoples of Europe. Do you believe that? I doubt. I believe that this denial of the italian identity hides another nationalism. You 'll never get friendship whit a nation which you denies its existence. This is the same attitude of Mussolini! What would he think Slovenian people if I told them that Joze Pleknic or Dubravka Tomic aren't Slovenian because Slovenian State didn't exist when they were born? Virgil Caesar, Augustus were not modern "italians" I agree, but please, people born after 1000 AD are italians, Marco Polo too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marco Polo was Italian

Why it is forbidden to wrhite that Marco Polo was Italian? It is ridicolous to think that italians didn't exist before 1861...Italian identity existed before 1861, Dante Petrarch Machiavelli.... all considered themselves as italians! They had same culture traditions and language. Nationalities can exist without a State. Germany was unified in 1870...J.S. Bach was not a German? M. Luther was not a German? It 's ridicolous. Italian merchands were the most rich and clever at the time, not only people from Venetian Republic, but also the people from Genua, Pisa ,Florence and many others italian states. I think it is important to remember that Marco Polo was an italian merchant from Venetian Republic.--Diegriva (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC


This line of argument is nul and void considering the fact that the Germans are, for the most part, an ethnic group whereas, modern Italians are not. You seem to be confusing the concepts of ethnicity and nationality. The term 'German' today can refer to both ethnicity and nationality. For instance, most Germans today belong to a single ethnic group as they are commonly descended from the original German speaking tribes of antiquity. A person can also be a German solely via nationality, as in the case with, say for example a Turkish person who holds citizenship to the modern German state. So it is correct to call somebody like Martin Luther a German as that was his ethnic origin...descended from historical German tribes. Therefore it is irrelevent as to whether or not a German national state existed during his life because as you yourself almost admitted, an ethnic group can exist with or without a national state.

The difference being that an Italian today can only be an 'Italian' in terms of nationality as there has NEVER been an 'Italian' ethnic group. There was NO single ethnic 'Italian' tribe roaming around the Italian peninsular in antiquity to which modern 'Italians' can claim common descent from. As I have said before, the Italian peninsular has always been an ethnically diverse region, home to many different ethnicities and peoples. The term 'Italian' was only used as a regional identifier prior to 1861 and then as a term of nationality after the artificial creation of the modern Italian state in 1861 etc.

Its ironic that you chose to use Germans as an example considering that a large part of the population of northern Italy today is of ethnic German origin. Considering this, the people of South Tyrol are about as 'Italian' as Marco Polo!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"A large part of the population of northern Italy today is of ethnic German origin...". Germans in South-Tyrol: 290,774; inhabitants in Northern Italy: 27,636,855; percentage of Germans in Northern Italy: 1.05%. Is this "a large part"?--Presbite (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Travels of Marco Polo

  • Marco Polo (1918). William Marsden (ed.). The Travels of Marco Polo. the University of Wisconsin - Madison: J.M. Dent & Sons. p. 461. Retrieved 2011-05-29.

04:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Theer seems to be some scholarly controversy (not reflected in the article) about whether or not the Travels is a complete fabrication. For example, there appeaqrs to be no corroboration from the voluminous Chinese records of that time of any such character at all. Should not this discussion be included in the article? Peterlewis (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

yes, actually actually there's a controversy regarding Marco Polo's trip ever since they it was published and there are still some scholar doubting it today. However afaik mainstream academic view is that Marco Polo (most likely) was indeed in China based on various indirect evidence that together makes a rather strong case though the final proof might be still missing. Also most arguments of the few doubting scholars have big issues on their own, meaning their explanations often contain reasoning being less likely/convincing than Polo being in China. (for mainstream view see: Rachewiltz, Beckwith p.416, The Cambridge History of China p. 463)--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So shouldn't the article reflect this ongoing controversy? There is no mention at all of the problem. Peterlewis (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Well as I said there is no real controversy just few dissenting scholars. Whether their criticism/opinions should be covered or left out is imho a question of editorial judgement. This is an encyclopdic article on Marco Polo not a compilation of every individual scholarly opinion on Marco Polo out there. In other words the article must cover the mainstream view and may cover dissenting views if they are considered notable enough. Personally I have no strong opinion, whether we stick with the must part or venture into may. Our article is fine to stay as it is, if it similar to The Cambridge History of China treats the issue as settled. However that does not negate the option to extend it by dissenting views as long as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are taken into account. One of the prominent recent and formally notable dissenters might be Frances Wood, but her book seems to have gotten rather bad reviews by other scholars (see Rachewiltz for that).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that if indeed it is factual that no record of the Polo journeys exists in the Chinese historical record, then that fact should be stated in the main article. (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed, there is controversy. See here for detailed examples of anomalies in his accounts (he mixes up two wars for instance)... The article should cover this without question. If someone thinks it's just 'a few dissenting scholars', give us a ref saying how few there are :) Malick78 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes you can mention the so called controversy shortly in accordance with WP:DUE, but I'd like to point out that most things those sources claim to questionable or controversial are mostly not controversial or queszionable at all at second glance. I suggest to read Igor de Rachewiltz: F. Wood's Did Marco Polo Go To China? A Critical Appraisal. ePrint der Australian National University, 28. September 2004 (Online) for somewhat authoritative and recent source on that.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first attempt as unfortunately this was exactly how we should not handle the issue in an encyclopedic article. Marco Polo is a well researched historical subject, meaning there is enough proper and realiable scholarly material and absolutely no need to resort to less qualified and reliable sources such as newspapers, regular journalists or self proclaimed pundits. So if you want to include these doubts please use the scholarly sources only (such as Francis Wood).

Aside from the issue of source quality, there is also an issue of providing proper context information. This is in particular important since many of those points that at first glance seem to contradict Marco Polo's don't necessarily do so at closer inspection with context knowledge. To understand why that is I'd like to recommend reading Rachewiltz's review of Wood's book (online version of the review).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There has certainly been plenty of "controversy" in scholarly literature - not so much as to whether Travels are a "complete fabrication", but rather whether he got all the way to China (as opposed to writing about China based on hearsay picked in Central Asia or Mongolia). As mentioned by Kmhkmh above, Frances Wood wrote a very good book actually called Did Marco Polo go to China? For a shorter and more recent review of the controversy, see e.g.: Haw, Stephen G. (2006), Marco Polo's China: a Venetian in the realm of Khubilai Khan, Volume 3 of Routledge studies in the early history of Asia, Psychology Press, pp. 52–57, ISBN 0415348501. (We actually have this ref in the article already). It seems that the view with the wider acceptance (including by Haw) is that Polo most likely did go to China, but, while in China, spent his time in the Mongol and semu (foreign expats in the Yuan Dynasty's service) circles, without ever learning Chinese or becoming familiar all that closely with the Chinese people's life. Thus, no mention of Chinese writing, chopsticks, tea, etc. -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. There is actually a very detailed specialist article regarding the ship in which Marco Polo sailed from China to Persia: Wake, Christopher (1997), "The Great Ocean-going Ships of Southern China in the Age of Chinese Maritime Voyaging to India, Twelfth to Fifteenth", International Journal of Maritime History, 9 (2): 51–81 Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Wake tries to convert Polo's info about the ship's capacity into modern measurements, and use it to come up with a "realistic" size for Zheng He's "treasure boats" (which were constructed some 120 years later). Not sure what it says about the number of masts, but I can look it up if someone really needs it. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Doubts that he went to China

I (Anthony Appleyard (talk)) tried to insert this section into the article, but it was deleted.

Various newspaper and other articles, including Daily Telegraph Wednesday 10 August 2010 page 17, suspect that March Polo got no further than the Black Sea coast, and there over years wrote up his account of his travels from returning merchants' stories of their travels. Points mentioned by the Daily Telegraph article (by "Nick Squires in Rome") include:

  • Confusion between the 1274 and 1281 attacks by Kublai Khan on Japan.
  • Statement that the Mongol ships had 5 masts, but in reality they had only 3 masts.
  • Marco Polo describes Kublai Khan's ships being waterproofed with "chunam", which is a Persian word for pitch (resin), but means nothing in Chinese and Mongolian.
  • Marco Polo uses Persian forms of Chinese and Mongolian place names.
  • Marco Polo never describes the wellknown Chinese customs of foot-binding, tea-drinking, chopsticks, or the Great Wall.
  • There is nothing in the Polo family's archives to say that he had been to China.
  • Marco Polo's surviving possessions contain nothing that came from China.
The reasons for the deletions are stated in the section above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If you're reason was that newspapers aren't "reliable" enough, then you were wrong to delete it Kmhkmh. Especially since one of the books you mention was published in 2004, and can reasonably be argued to lack recent research. If you want to argue that the above is inelegantly written, then that may be true - but editing it to improve it would be a better response. I'd suggest:

In August 2011 the Daily Telegraph reported on research suggesting that Marco Polo got no further than the Black Sea coast, and that he wrote up his account using information from returning merchants' stories of their travels. Points mentioned by the Daily Telegraph article include:

  • Confusion between the 1274 and 1281 attacks by Kublai Khan on Japan.
  • Statement that the Mongol ships had 5 masts, but in reality they likely only had 3 masts.
  • Marco Polo describes Kublai Khan's ships being waterproofed with "chunam", which is a Persian word for pitch (resin), but means nothing in Chinese or Mongolian.
  • Marco Polo never describes the wellknown Chinese customs of foot-binding, tea-drinking, chopsticks, or the Great Wall.
  • There is nothing in the Polo family's archives to say that he reached China.
  • Marco Polo's surviving possessions contain nothing that came from China.

I'd prefer not to use a list, but that's my preference I guess. The information itself though is valid, unless you show a source which disputes it, rather than implying that you merely don't like it. Malick78 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok maybe I wasn't fully understood here, so forgive me for the bold print to make the point unmistakenly clear. The Daily Telegraph is not an acceptable source, when ample scholarly sources are available. If you want to include that information use the original scholarly publication. Moreover the argument stated here is essentially the same as Woods extended by some minor details and that is not exactly that well regarded by the scientific community either (again please read Rachewiltz to understand why).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seem that some Anglo-Saxon sinologist don’t read history books especially in foreign languages. Probably they would understand immediately that Polo is not the only one. The Venetians had doubts for his close relationship with Kublai (intimancy) no for the journey

--Andriolo (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ In Italian: "Polo è più propriamente veneto,[...], derivano, direttamente o tramite ipocoristici, da una variazione del cognomen latino Paullus o direttamente del cognomen latino Polus. Inutile citare il famosissimo Marco Polo (1254-1324)". Translation: "Polo is a typical Veneto surname,[...], derived from, directly or through transliteration, the Latin cognomen Paullus or directly from the Latin cognomen Polus. It's useless citing the very famous Marco Polo (1254-1324)."
  2. ^ Wood, Frances (1995). Did Marco Polo Go To China?. London: Secker & Warburg.
  3. ^ Jackson, Peter (1998). "Marco Polo and his 'Travels'". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. 61 (1): 82–101.