Talk:Marco Polo

Much fake data on Marco Polo being planted. However for historians this is a howler. example Marco never set foot in Kashmir Valley. Neither does Jonaraja nor Srivara mentions this. Carefully planted fake data.

Marco Polo’s Birth date

It isn’t really specific or accurate, so please specify on which day and moth he was born if possible 2001:8F8:153F:5157:D026:F9B3:DC50:219C (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Not possible, lack of documents ;) Tone 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

September, 15, 1254. As stated by many sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosso Veneziano (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The top result of that Google search is a prezi, which is definitely not a reliable source. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There are thousands of results, not only "prezi".Rosso Veneziano (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that results of a google search aren't necessarily reliable sources. If you want to back up a claim about someone, you need to provide an actual reliable source, not a link to a google search. OliveYouBean (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

This[1]?Rosso Veneziano (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As stated in many reliable and academic sources - his date of birth is unknown. Even the year 1254 is approximately calculated so it can be read that he was born "around 1254" or "in 1254".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

O Hatuhashi (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Birtplace

Wasn't he born in Korčula , presentday Croatia, that was part of Venetian state 93.139.202.201 (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That's just a theory. The sub-section "Family origin" was heavily edited over the years. Current revision claims "Some Croatian sources claim Polo's ancestors to be of far Dalmatian origin,[15][16][17][18] but most historians consider it unfounded, as the Polo family lived in Venice since the year 971.[19]". The editing over the years was so heavy that original WP:NPOV was lost. Old Venetian-Italian sources considered his family of Dalmatian origin or as uncertain. In Croatia was also popular a theory about the origin from the island of Korcula (also mentioned in international literature) - that theory, not Dalmatian one, is considered by most historians as not well argued enough. The reference "19" is an unreliable source for such an article and topic & authored by a non-expert and non-historian.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, User:Rosso Veneziano, User:Jonathan, I have made some changes on the recent edits to make sure we do not lean too much into the fringe theories. And I have added a passage from Book I of the Travels of Marco Polo from which historians assume that Marco Polo and his family were from Venice:

"They [Nicolo Polo and his brother] therefore determined to spend the interval in visiting their families at Venice. Departing from Acre, they proceeded to Negropont, and thence to their native city. Here Messer Nicolo found that his wife, whom he left pregnant, had died, leaving a son named Marco, the same who wrote this book."

I missed the previous talk but I think that "Italian explorer and merchant from the Republic of Venice" is fine as a formula and that it can be restored. Marco Polo is equally described as Venetian and Italian so saying "Italian from the Republic of Venice" captures both things. Barjimoa (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed -and have been arguing this extensively, with proper sources, since Oct when this comment was posted. Unfortunately, a small handful of editors are keen on making a controversy out of this, and have been resisting any attempts to revert the lead back to its original wording, which was fine the way it was. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

change "He died in 1324 and was buried in the church of San Lorenzo in Venice" in "He died in 1324 and was buried in the chapel dedicated to San Sebastian in the church of San Lorenzo in Venice. The chapel had been demolished in 1580 and his ashes were lost as well as the family grave" Graziano Meneghin (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Remsense ‥ 论 10:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Namely, I'm not quite sure if there's encyclopedic value in the extra detail—we needn't mention every single fact about him known to man—though I'm more than happy to hear if there's any particular interest or significance to St Sebastian or the circumstances surrounding the chapel's demolition if I'm not privy to it. Remsense ‥ 论 10:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The ambiguity lies in the fact that the church of San Lorenzo still exists but there is no trace inside of either the loculus, the tomb, or the tombstone of the Polo family. The ambiguity lies in the fact that the church of San Lorenzo still exists but there is no trace inside of either the loculus, the tomb, or the tombstone of the Polo family. This is given by the fact that the church underwent several renovations in the late sixteenth century, including the demolition of the chapel of St. Sebastian containing the Polo family's tombs. Many people visit the church in search of Marco Polo's remains, but they are no longer found there. Graziano Meneghin (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Fringe "Dalmatian" theories

The idea that Marco Polo was of Croatian/Dalmatian origin is far younger than Polo himself, is based on anecdotal evidence, and is not taken seriously outside of Croatia. Yet that hasn't stopped some editors from inserting this fringe theory into the "early life" section, some of whom I suspect were probably involved in the other effort to get "Italian" removed from the lead.

You may want to refer to the Christopher Columbus article for a lesson on how to successfully manage frequent attempts to insert pseudo-historical origin claims into the article (and attempts to get "Italian" out of the lead, which is as big of a nuisance there as it is here). Unless someone can demonstrate that Dalmatian origin speculation is at least a significant minority pov outside of Croatia, it should not appear in this article, and certainly not in a main biographical section. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually Christopher Columbus is not a good example since there is (proper) new research suggesting he was a sephardic jew (see [2]) and hence most likely not Italian.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again -sorry, but that "research" is just sensationalized nonsense that appears every few years in Spain and then makes its rounds in the media. You cannot use DNA tests to figure out where someone was born, nor even to draw a sharp genetic distinction between regions like Northern Italy and Spain. That isn't how genomic science works.

Needless to say, most editors on the Columbus article are wise to this which is why the lead hasn't changed, despite the frequent talk page attempts to change it.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, this part was already relegated to a footnote but somehow managed to find its way back in the main text. Yes, too excessive for the biography article. Tone 13:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tone: the editor's remark is wrong, the Dalmatian origin is demonstrated by cited sources to be a significant minority out of Croatia, and this is not only and mainly about Croatian/Dalmatian fringe theory about the island of Korcula from the 19th century. Exactly the Venetian/Italian sources since the 14th century forward claimed his family was not of a Venetian origin, that they were immigrants, from Dalmatia or elswehere. Those, reliable historical sources, influenced the later fringe theory as well. With the removal was removed two very important parts of the section, the reliably sourced footnotes about origin (and the fact it is archivally unknown), and the fact that there existed separate Polo families which genealogical information and coat of arms are often mistaken in the literature. The section now doesn't represent information about Polo's family origin at all. Some parts could have been trimmed or simply moved to footnotes again.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors find such information too excessive for the biography article, meanwhile exist's article like Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, then can be made a separate article Origin theories of Marco Polo as well because non-Venetian birth place/and family origin are mainstream POV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not mainstream positions among scholars, the historical evidence-based consensus is that Polo was Venetian and Columbus was Genoese. The issue is that both these figures, because of their fame, have been claimed to be from other regions and countries for chauvinistic reasons or rather because of traditions that exist in those areas since some centuries or just because of mistakes. Some sloppy authors have a wrong methodology, they fall for this and try to prove some tradition or claim is true despite the evidence leading clearly somwhere else, but they have always been recognized to be outside of the consensus (what we call fringe views). It's like with mythtical heroes that over time get claimed to be from multiple countries, except these are historical figures and we know where they really came from. So there is a difference between rejected (usualy, altough not necessarily, local) theories and what we know historically. The article on the origin theories of Columbus is essentially a list of wrong theories and makes it clear. Yes, we could do that for Polo too, but it would still need to make it clear what's the historical consensus. Barjimoa (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

We did have an article on theories on Polo's origin, which was AfD'ed over 10 years ago when it was established that it should not exist because of the reasons mentioned above (fringe stuff). Tone 16:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I can see that happening unfortunately. Barjimoa (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but also don't see that was the case neither at the time had such information. Again, mainstream sources do mention fringe Korcula (it is good to be mentioned in context of negative reception), but that theory isn't related to other reliably sourced information which was removed without proper substantiation. Removal of that information on the basis of Korcula fringe theory is nonsensical. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Barjimoa: almost nothing you said is true. It is not possible to have a constructive discussion reaching for NPOV if we are going to make claims ignoring what's written in the section (with clear consensus) and don't check what's written in the reliable sources (both historical and modern litetature). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am being constructive. I said I am not generally opposed to have an article like the one we have on Columbus. I am saying it should still make clear what the historical agreement is and that it's a list of theories that do not form a part of the consensus. In that case we can have it. Otherwise, if it's created to counter the consensus here and confuse people, obviously it shouldn't exist. That's my position.Barjimoa (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and it should not be in a main biographical section. The whole rule about "fringe theories" is that they shouldn't be mentioned at all, although sometimes editors try to start separate sections to address those fringe theories that have generated mainstream scholarly pushback. The problem here is that I'm not convinced these Dalmatian theories have inspired any mainstream scholarly dialogue at all, or if most RSes simply ignore them. I think it's time for a literature review. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Cited literature (won't quote in Croatian, although reliable):

in English

• Henry Yule; Henri Cordier (1923), The Travels Of Marco Polo, Mineola: Dover Publications, ISBN 978-0-486-27586-4 -

• Arthur Christopher Moule, Paul Pelliot (1938). Marco Polo: The Description of the World. Vol. 1. London: George Routledge & Sons Limited. -

• Frances Wood (1998), Did Marco Polo Go To China?, Westview Press, ISBN 978-0-8133-8999-8 -

• Laurence Bergreen (2007), Marco Polo: From Venice to Xanadu, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-307-26769-6, p. 24 - "Although complete agreement on the origins of the family is lacking, one tradition suggests that the Polos migrated from the Dalmatian town of Sebenico to the Venetian lagoon in 1033 ... Another tradition holds that Marco Polo was born on Curzola, the island where he would later be captured by the Genoese, while a third asserts that Polos had been entrenched in the Venetian lagoon prior to all these events ... The name Polo-Venetian vernacular derived from the Latin Paulus-appears with the frequency in civic records beginning in 971, when a Venetian named Domenico Polo signed a petition forbidding commerce with Arabs, and later entries show that various Polos owned land and salt mines, and served as judges throughout the realm. This activity suggests that Marco Polo's ancestors shuttled between Venice and her embattled satellite, Dalmatia."

• Kathryn Hinds (2002), Venice and Its Merchant Empire, New York -

• Timothy Brook (2010), The Troubled Empire: China in the Yuan and Ming Dynasties, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-04602-3, p. 24 - "The Polos, Venetian by the time Marco was born, hailed from the island of Korcula on the far side of the Adriatic Sea in present-day Croatia."

• Olga Orlić (2013). "The curious case of Marco Polo from Korčula: An example of invented tradition". Journal of Marine and Island Cultures. 2 (1): 20–28. Bibcode:2013JMICu...2...20O. doi:10.1016/j.imic.2013.05.001 -

• Edward Peters, Fosco Maraini, "Marco Polo". Encyclopedia Britannica. - "(born c. 1254, Venice [Italy]—died January 8, 1324, Venice) was a Venetian merchant"

in Italian

• See note 1 edited per Moule & Pelliot 1938/Puljiz-Šostik 2015 - "In the old Venetian chronicles, manuscripts and genealogies seemingly is known and mentioned only one Polo family, specifically from San Geremia.[28] According to 14th-century chronicle Venetiarum historia vulgo Petro Iustiniano Iustiniani filio adiudicata they were immigrants to Venice with uncertain origin; mid-15th century chronicle Cronaca di Venezia fino al 1446 alongside family's coat of arms is stated that in old times came from Dalmatia ("antigamente vene de dalmatia"); another mid-15th century document stating the same "veneron antigamente de dalmatia"; Marino Sanuto the Younger in the 16th century claimed Dalmatian origin; Marco Barbaro in Genealogie Patrizie (1566) claims they arrived in 1033 to Venice from Šibenik; two 1600 manuscripts stating they "ueneno de dalmatia", "uene de Dalmatia" and so on.[29][30]"

• Giuseppe Bettinelli (1780). Dizionario Storico-Portatile Di Tutte Le Venete Patrizie Famiglie [Historical Dictionary Of All-Portable Venetian Patrician Families] (in Italian). Venice. p. 126. - "Polo. Vennero dalla Dalmazia. Un f. Nicolò, e Marco fuo Figliuolo, celebrattiffimi viagiatori..."

• Placido Zurla (1818). Di Marco Polo e degli altri viaggiatori veneziani più illustri (in Italian). Vol. 1. Venice: Presso Gio. Giacomo Fuchs. pp. 42–43. -

• Niccolò Tommaseo (1857). Bellezza e civiltà, o delle arti del bello sensibile, studii (in Italian). Florence: Felice Le Monnier. p. 324. -

• "Pòlo, Marco". Treccani (in Italian). Istituto Treccani. Retrieved 17 October 2023. - "Viaggiatore veneziano (Venezia o Curzola 1254 - Venezia 1324)"

• M.G. Chiappori (1998). "Polo, Marco". Enciclopedia dell' Arte Medievale (in Italian). Istituto Treccani. Retrieved 17 October 2023. - "nato nella città lagunare o a Curzola, in Dalmazia, nel 1254 e morto a Venezia nel 1324"

• "Polo, Marco". Dizionario di Storia (in Italian). Istituto Treccani. 2011. Retrieved 17 October 2023. - "Venezia o Curzola 1254-Venezia 1324"

• Giuseppe Gullino (2015). "Polo, Marco". Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (in Italian). Vol. 84. Istituto Treccani. Retrieved 17 October 2023. - "Nacque a Venezia nel 1254. Suo padre, Nicolò di Andrea, del quale non si conosce la data di nascita, esercitò per lungo tempo la mercatura a Costantinopoli, assieme al fratello Matteo. Risiedeva, in Venezia, probabilmente nella contrada di San Severo; non è noto il nome della moglie."

• Giovanni Vale (28 August 2023). "Marco Polo, homo adriaticus in spite of everything". Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa. OBCT. Retrieved 17 October 2023. - "According to some, the question is open, so much so that the Treccani aencyclopedia uses a compromise formula, indicating: "Polo, Marco – Venetian traveller (Venice or Korčula 1254 – Venice 1324)". In fact, there is no document that certifies the explorer's birthplace and it seems established that his family had ancient Dalmatian origins, more precisely from Šibenik. At the time, these disquisitions made little sense, as all these territories belonged to the same state: the Republic of Venice, which controlled almost the entire eastern coast of the Adriatic. Today, however, the debate is alive. On the Italian side, scholars such as Alvise Zorzi, author among other things of a biography of the explorer, argue that "there is no doubt that Marco Polo was Venetian, his family had been Venetian since the 10th century". The Croatian side, on the other hand, insists that a certain "DePolo" family owned some houses in Korčula, even if the one that has been referred to for years as the traveller's birthplace was built at least two centuries after his death. It's not much, but enough to fuel the local tourist narrative."

• Alvise Zorzi (1981, 2000). Vita di Marco Polo veneziano. Bompiani, ISBN 9788845290251 - ?

• Tiziana Plebani (ed.; 2019). Il testamento di Marco Polo. Il documento, la storia, il contesto. Milano, Edizioni Unicopli, ISBN 9788840020518 - ?

Here is a list, which we can all edit, those without quotes need to be cited as well for review. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to present these sources, but it would've been more helpful to quote chapter, verse and context for all of them considering most of us don't have access to them and wouldn't have the time to read them anyway. I want other editors to weigh in, but my personal opinion is that you've come close to making a case that some mention of origin theories may be due, but not in one of the main biographical sections. Quoting Giovanni Vale again:

"The Croatian side, on the other hand, insists that a certain "DePolo" family owned some houses in Korčula, even if the one that has been referred to for years as the traveller's birthplace was built at least two centuries after his death. It's not much, but enough to fuel the local tourist narrative."

He is indeed correct about this, and in fact they've got a museum in Korcula next to this house they claim Polo was born in, despite the fact that it was built well after Polo died. In your other sources they cite "15th Century" documents to back this claim, which are highly speculative to say the least.

This is pretty much what happened with Columbus -an Italian explorer became famous, and then everyone wanted to claim him as their own centuries after the fact. Many of your sources talk about "ancient Dalmatian" ancestors, which may be of genealogical interest but so what? Polo is a Venetian surname and I'd venture to guess that many Medieval Venetians had some Dalmatian ancestors. We are not in the habit of speculating whether famous Italians had "Lombard" ancestors or "Norman" ancestors, and we can assume that many of them probably did. But if this is to bolster a Croatian tourist industry narrative, I fail to see the encyclopedic relevance. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• There has also been dispute as to whether the Polo family is of Venetian origin because their exact origin is also unknown.

I don't know what would be Fringe here, or excessive detail?

• There existed at least two families of the same surname in Venice, one in the San Geremia district, and another in the San Giovanni Grisostomo where was Marco's family house (he is mentioned in 1323 as Marco Paulo de confinio Sancti Iohannis Grisostomi), and their members and coat of arms are often mistaken in the sources.

I don't know what would be Fringe here, or excessive detail?

• Some Venetian sources of the 15th and 16th centuries considered that the family Polo was of Dalmatian origin.

I don't know what would be Fringe here, or excessive detail? If we have "The Travels of Marco Polo" from 13th-century travelogue written down by Rustichello da Pisa, I don't know why there would not be Venetian sources, that is informations from the 15-16 centuries in the article?

• Placido Zurla in the early 19th century noted that in the historical sources there is a lack of any specific mention related to Polo's family,while Niccolò Tommaseo in the mid-19th century considered Dalmatian origin of the family.

I don't know what would be Fringe here? Possibly an outdated secondary sources.

• Some scholars such as Alvise Zorzi argue Venetian origin and that it can be traced up to the 10th century.

This could be a fringe context considering that probably no one connects Polo with Venice and the origin which occurs since 10th century.

• According to another disputed theory their origin and Polo's birthplace was on the island of Korčula, which is influenced by Ramusio's account about Polo's capture during the Battle of Curzola (1298).

I don't know what would be Fringe here? Possible excessive detail but it can fit in with other sources that mention Korčula. Mikola22 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You've been at this for four years, first in an effort to get the lead changed from "Italian" to "Venetian" (Venetians are and always were Italians), and now in an attempt to push this Dalmatian theory into the main body of the article. Please don't clutter up this section with a dozen more links -comment on the sources Miki has presented. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice?

From Croatian source: "It is known that Marco Polo grew up in Venice, but there is no evidence that he was born there. Also, there is no information about the birth of his father and uncles, and nothing is known about his mother." Zdenka Janeković Römer, Doctor of Science. Marko Polo i Korčula (Marco Polo and Korčula) [3]

How was he born in Venice when there are no primary sources that prove it, that is, there are sources ie source which point out this fact. Despite this, I and other readers of this article learn that he was born in Venice? I only learned today from this Croatian source that there is no information that Polo was born in Venice. Mikola22 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

A reminder to not take seriously these theories that Polo was Croatian, they are in clear contrast with the consensus. Our accounts do call Marco Polo "Venetian" and nowhere they say he was born outside of Venice, so it's assumed he was born in Venice. On top of that, the Travels say Polo's father (who was from Venice) left his wife pregnant in Venice and first met his son Marco when he returned in Venice. So he was Venetian, he was in Venice in the womb of his mother, and he first appears in Venice after he was born. These are some reasons why most say Polo was born there, whereas it's baseless to think his mom went elsewhere to give birth without the Travels ever mentioning such a thing or calling him anything other than simply Venetian.Barjimoa (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

"In the testament of his uncle Marko from 1280, it is stated that he was a habitator, i.e. a resident, not a citizen of Venice, and that he arrived there from Constantinople."Zdenka Janeković Römer, Marko Polo i Korčula (Marco Polo and Korčula)

This is what we know documented about his relatives. We assume that Polo was born in Venice. But then it should be indicated in the article with the information that there is no proof that he was born there. This should be for neutrality of the article, that is, the readers should know all the information about this fact.

By the way, we are not talking about Croatian origin here, but about fact that there is no proof that Polo was born in Venice. Zdenka Janeković Römer lists several Croatian historians who dealt with it, so we assume that it is a factual situation. I guess they all together wrote everything that is known about Polo. Mikola22 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How does that author addresses the fact that the Travels say his father returned to Venice to find his son there? This is generally taken to mean Marco was born and grew up in Venice, it's hard to argue against this. The issue is that most of our sources believe that the things we know are enough to establish he was born in Venice, so we should stick with what they say. We rely on sources-based consensus among historians and lack ultimate proof of his birthplace like archival documents but this is mentioned in the article, and this is true for most of figures far removed from us in the past. I understand these Croatian authors do not agree on Polo being born in Venice but a)they are still a minority; b)this is often linked with the theory that he was a Croatian or Dalmatian from Korcula (the title of that paper makes me think so), which is generally rejected. It's true that the idea of "it just says Venetian=therefore he was born in Venice" is an assumption, but that's a reasoned one: every Italian figure of this time called Florentine or Roman or Neapolitan or similar is taken to be born in that city, otherwise it's believed sources would clarify that to avoid confusion; for example Leonardo is mentioned as "a Florentine" but our sources clarify he was "from Vinci", if he was just Florentine they would not add "born in Florence", we do not expect that, it would be redundant. Barjimoa (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Travels is a primary source written down by Rustichello da Pisa from stories told by Italian explorer Marco Polo. How do we know that this part of the book and the claims of Rustichello da Pisa are correct? We don't know. That is why Wikipedia uses secondary sources of historians who interpret it. If there are other primary sources that do not confirm and prove it, then we do not take that information as crown evidence. But that information is part of the article while other informations from secondary sources are not part of the article. Which probably means that only part of the relevant informations is being promoted by violating the neutrality of the article and by pushing the unconfirmed information that he was born in Venice. Mikola22 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The general/consensus opinion of modern historians (our secondary sources) is that the Travels can be treated a realiable account for Polo's life (otherwise we would know very little of him) and contain historical information, except for a number of fantastical stories that are a legendary exaggeration of what happened, but if it's something realistic it's agreed they are reliable. Even on this, there are some fringe views disputing the veracity of the accounts, like some authors claim Polo never went to China, but this is generally rejected just like him being born in Korcula. Technically one could say "how do we know source X it's true on this" for every source written in human history, and the answer is that sometimes we believe them and sometimes we don't, there are people who study this for a long period of time and decide what's likely true and what's likely not. So they look at what the sources directly or indirectly say and they form majority opinion, in this case: Polo was born in Venice, Polo was born around 1254, Polo did go to China etc etc. If there is only minorities advocating for it, then it's fringe views. The results is that Polo being from Venice is in the consensus opinion, Polo being from Korcula is a fringe view. Another fringe view would be that he was born in 1270, for that matter. It's how we proceed.Barjimoa (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Polo being from Korcula is not fringe view because there are several different sources which mention it in the context of the assumption just as there are sources which assume that he was born in Venice. However, most of the sources mention birth in Venice as the fact, which in fact is not, and thus other sources who do not claim it are placed in the fringe rank because of that. This is because not all academic sources are used in article, but mostly one side.

"but the exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown" there are multiple sources behind this information from the article so the fact that he was born in Venice has not been proven by most quality historians. Mikola22 (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah you again. So after badgering everyone to get the lead changed (the dispute resolution I called did not go your way btw -the admin agreed that both "Italian" and "Venetian" are acceptable lead descriptions), you've now jumped in to defend the fringe Dalmatian theory. Don't try to pretend these two little crusades of yours are not related -we get it, you think Polo was Dalmatian, and you don't want the article to say he was Italian. The problem here is that it doesn't matter what you want -there are an abundance of mainstream RSes describing Polo as "Italian" and none that refer to him as either "Dalmatian" or "Croatian." The only way to move this question forward is to put up your sources so we can review them. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You were told more than once that it was decided by the RFC, not me. But you obviously don't give up. Mikola22 (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

And you were told several times that an RfC you started 3 or 4 years ago is not an unmovable object on here. Don't make me link the dispute resolution we participated in much more recently -it did not go well for you. We deal with this stuff all the time on Italian biographies, and while people like you sometimes manage to change leads temporarily, don't expect this to last. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

What do I have to do with it? I'm telling you that it was decided by the editors at Rfc. My motive is to respect the rules of Wikipedia, which is to put historical figures in the context of the time in which they live and act. Why Christopher Columbus is presented as Italian even though Italy did not exist in his time, I do not know. You should ask the editors who support that, and you can send them here to present Polo as an Italian in a future Rfc. Mikola22 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Because, unlike you, most of the editors on that article are aware that the designation "Italian" was in use many centuries before Columbus and Polo were born, was used in primary sources describing Columbus (that is, 15th and 16th Century sources), and is used in the secondary scholarly literature as frequently as it appears in modern Polo scholarship. The fact that you're confused about this and keep repeating the same false argument that "Italy didn't exist" is not something an RfC can sort out -it's been explained to you at least a dozen times. You were presented with several RSes which state that the label "Italian" had origins in Roman Italy and never fell out of use in the Middle Ages. When these sources are cited, you either don't read them or don't process them, and then continue with the same circular argument, for years now.

So please, stop repeating this debunked claim and trying to get RfCs to revolve around a pseudo-historical question. The question for an RfC would be: "Can we describe Polo as Italian considering the fact that most reliable sources describe him as Italian?" This is a waste of everyone's time. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Family origin

Marco Polo was born around 1254 in Venice, but the exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown.

This is information from the article. The editors probably wanted to combine the sources which say that Polo was born in Venice and the sources which say that it is not known from the archives where he was born. However, this wording from the article is not clear and does not convey the context of all sources, which falls under the rank of OR, considering that the wording "but the exact date and place of birth are archivally unknown" can also mean a specific part of Venice, the suburbs, etc.

To avoid the OR context, I suggest that we formulate the second part of the sentence like this: "however, there is no archival material which would prove that Polo was born in Venice". Mikola22 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've got news for you -we can't "prove" where most pre-modern people were born, and we don't need to do that here. There's scholarly consensus that he was born in Venice, and various sources describing his purported Korculan origins as an "invented tradition" that was popularized only in the 20th Century interwar period. [4].

" I will not advocate any of the viewpoints in the birthplace controversy, especially because there are a dizzying number of claims over the origin of the Polo family, if not of Marco Polo himself."

"it should be noted that historians have only verified one fact connecting Marco Polo to Korčula island, namely, that he was captured near the island during a naval battle between Venetian and Genoese naval forces (Foretić, 1940: 70) and was imprisoned on the island for several days before being transferred to the Genoese prison where he dictated the book that made him famous (Gjivoje, 1969: 47–48). However, associating Marco Polo with Korčula Island became more popular after 1922, when Korčula became interested in tourist development." Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"No archival material could prove he was born in Venice" is not a phrasing I would use. The Polos appear in the archives of Venice, what we don't have is something akin to a birth or baptism certificate...but the thing is that it's pretty common to lack such hard evidence for the birth of historical figures, especially non-nobles. Possibly the phrase could be removed entirely, the lack of such a document has been relevant only to those who tried to argue that Marco Polo was not from Venice, to the rest of it's just kinda expected.Barjimoa (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The context of part of the source is that it is not archivally confirmed, but with a possible other place where Polo originates from. So leaving only information which says that Polo was born in Venice I don't know how it is in line with the rules of wiki if there are other sources which don't confirm it. Mikola22 (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It's 100% in line with the rules of a mainstream encyclopedia that goes by mainstream consensus -which in this case agrees Polo was born in Venice. It's deceptive to present these different origin theories as if they're all on the same scholarly footing -the non-Venetian origin claims are far more unlikely than the traditional view that he was a Venetian from Venice. To expect that there should be something like a birth certificate for someone born in the 13th Century and then to use the absence of documentation to bolster an alternative origin claim (on such ridiculous reasoning like linking him to vaguely similar surnames and 15th Century hearsay), is nonsense. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Trivia

I find the section Arts, entertainment, and media perhaps a bit too trivial, listing video games from centuries after his time. I don't know what other editors think?--Marginataen (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)