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?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)

Marco Polo: A Italian
Yeah, Venetians are Italians but, Marco Polo, by many books, for example; H, Pirenne; "Social and Economic History of the Middle Ages" refers Marco Polo as a Venetian, also, between 1200-1400, Italy was not unified, and Venice was an Indepent state, and also, one of the most influential states in Europe and minor Asia, if we talk about trade and economy, so I think we should write "Venetian" instead of "Italian" Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This nitpick comes up many, many times and the answer is usually that, while Italy wasn't a state until the 1860s, people from the peninsula had been identifying as "Italian" since Roman times (at least since the imperial period) and thus people from Venice (founded by Roman descendants escaping Lombard invasions) had a strong sense of being both "Italian" and "Venetian". And this article makes it very clear that Polo was "Italian" from "the Republic of Venice" which are both factual statements. If this article has problems, this isn't one of them. Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Marco Polo was Venetian. This is based on the sources and it is confirmed in Rfc. Mikola22 (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What's this eccentric fixation on Italian vs Venetian all about? This is a false distinction -he was both. Just Google "Marco Polo Italian explorer" and you'll find endless sources describing him as an "Italian explorer from the Republic of Venice" exactly what this article used to say before you meddled with it.
 * Revert the edit. Your strange obsession with this fake distinction isn't improving the article and your edit isn't even in proper English. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My strange obsession and fake distinction has nothing to do with it. The information that he is Venetian is from the sources which are present. Also such formulation is decided on Rfc where decision was made in the consensus of the editors and the administrator's conclusion: The consensus is clear that the description in the lead paragraph should be changed. Mikola22 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Marco Polo was both a Venetian and Italian, but usage of the term Italian is anachronism because Italian nation in modern sense and Italy as a country did not exist at the time. Same thing plagues many other personalities in Europe who were born before the 19th century nation-building. At the time existed Republic of Venice and he was a citizen-countryman of that city-country. However, saying that Marco Polo was a "Venetian" or "Italian from the Republic of Venice" is basically the same thing because Venetian is a sub-ethnic category of Italian and one upon many synonyms for Italian. Italian encyclopedias and dictionaries published by the official institute of Treccani introduce him as "Viaggiatore veneziano", "veneziano" , "Viaggiatore veneziano" , "Viaggiatore veneziano" and so on. Also, just to be noted considering the cited reliable sources, the family's possible Dalmatian origin does not imply he was not a Venetian/Italian because coastal and insular Dalmatia was strongly influenced and controlled by the Republic of Venice as well as the population in the cities was most often ethnically/linguistically composed by Italian or Italianized people.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit was unnecessary. Now the lead in broken English doesn't state what he was ethnically/nationally although there's a strong mainstream point that he was a Venetian, an Italian. Considering the previous RfC, only thing which should have been replaced is "Italian" with "Venetian" but it is redundant saying he was a "Venetian from the Republic of Venice" and makes more sense saying "Italian from the Republic of Venice" because the Republic of Venice does not exist anymore and implies he was a Venetian.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this edit unnecessary or not has nothing to do with the editor's opinion given on Rfc. There, it was decided by consensus that the sources will be respected and the fact that in these sources Marco Polo is mentioned as a merchant of Venice or Venetian merchant. In that context Venetian merchant fact does not say anything about his ethnicity but only emphasizes that he is a Venetian merchant. Mikola22 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Marco Polo was not of Venetian/Italian ethnicity or was of any other ethnicity apart of Venetian/Italian nevertheless the location of his birthplace. According to the vast majority of reliable sources he was a Venetian/Italian in every sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Venetian/Italian ethnicity was not a question on Rfc. The question was whether Polo was an Italian or a Venetian merchant, and in that sense this information had to respect rules of Wikipedia as well as the sources. As for the ethnicity itself, it is evident from the article that there are several options where he was born and which is his possible origin. Certainly is not Italian. Mikola22 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not every single word on here needs to be sourced. You are creating a controversy out of something where none exists; none of those sources you cite would dispute he was Italian -they're just using the word "Venetian" out of convenience. Calling him "Italian" is as controversial as calling him a "male human" -it is self-evident.
 * Here's a source describing Polo as "a member of an Italian merchant family". (p. 87 )
 * And a 2015 edition of The Travels of Marco Polo describing him as "an Italian merchant from Venice".
 * What do you think ? Should we hold court and call another Rfc? Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jonathan f1, I've made a bold edit in the lead with "Venetian" - so that we have at least something in the lead and seems there's community consensus about its neutrality. As the term Venetian is a synonym with Italian and in the categories he is also under Venetians a new RfC is not necessary per se. The reasoning for the previous RfC is that the Italian identity is anachronism, but anachronism means identification of Venetian=Italian which makes Marco Polo a Venetian/Italian automatically. Considering the details, think that more accurate is saying "Venetian" than "Italian". You can always discuss, call a RfC or dispute resolution. @Mikola22, Marco Polo is certainly ethnically Italian and that's strong mainstream viewpoint in liteature. The family's possible Dalmatian origin does not imply their or Marco Polo's non-Italian ethnicity. That's not the dispute between Italy and Croatia - it is only about the birthplace. The far-fetched theory about the origin from Korčula also does not imply, at least not always, his non-Italian ethnicity. His presumable Croatian ethnicity or origin is a low quality fringe theory and assumptions without any evidence at best.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I opened another talk section up. No, you are wrong, it is not an "anachronism" and you'd be wise to browse some of the sources I've been citing. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources aren't examining his ethnicity -they're using "Venetian" as a shorthand for "Italian from the Republic of Venice", not because they don't think he was Italian. There are plenty of sources using both "Italian" and "Venetian" interchangeably (just google these terms and pick whatever RS you're okay with).
 * And what's this argument about Italy "not existing" before the 1860s all about? Do you honestly believe it's standard practice on this encyclopedia to avoid using ethnic labels on people who didn't live in a modern state? We have articles describing people as "German" before Germany existed, articles describing people as "Irish" hundreds of years before Ireland existed. Why do you suppose this obscure standard of yours should apply only to Italy? Do you not think anyone used the word "Italian" before 1860? It's a 2000 year old ethnicity:
 * "In the first centuries of the Roman Empire, the various ethnic groups that made up Italy coalesced into one singular Italian identity." . Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Due to RfC, will make a bold edit which will include at least Venetian with reference to Republic of Venice.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why say "Venetian from the Republic of Venice"? It's redundant and awkward vs. the totally uncontroversial and smoother-flowing "Italian from the Republic of Venice." This was the original wording and I'm still not understanding what the rationale is that renders this phrasing problematic. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn’t it against Wikipedia policy to have ethnicity in the subject’s article lead? That’s what I have been told before. So stating Italian when Italy as a state was not yet compiled would mean stating his ethnicity, that is if that was an ethnic identity of the era, regardless, Venetian would make sense I think. Unless his ethnicity is what make him notable. What do the sources mainly say? OyMosby (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the new talk section I opened. "Italian" was in use to describe the natives of the peninsula since late antiquity. This is backed by sources that address the argument from "anachronism" (it's false), and also found in Polo literature where terms like "Italian" and "Venetian" are used interchangeably. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn’t addressing my question I don’t think. Wikipedia policy is against stating ethnicity in the lead. Are you stating Italian as both his nationality and ethnicity or just ethnicity? I’ve seen admins remove ethnicity from the lead due to the policy. But there are exceptions case by case. OyMosby (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a false (some number)-chotomy going on here. Let's see:
 * Nationality – Non-starter. There is no whiff of the concept of an Italian nation as such in the High Middle Ages.
 * Ethnicity – Eh? Yes and no? But rightly banned from the infobox.
 * Simple Language – Italian did not exist as one language at this time.
 * Simple Locality – This is what I think Jonathan has been loosely grasping at, and yes, "Italy" remained a coherent geographical region throughout our era, and people from that region remained being called Italians. But does that matter? We don't call people Mediterranean in their lead, even though it would make sense to.
 * Remsense 诉  22:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The word Italian has been known and meant anyone from the Italian Peninsula since Antiquity. You can look it up if you don't believe me. 90.195.179.57 (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, as I wrote. I still don't think it's that useful compared to the alternatives. Remsense  诉  10:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you should head over to the bios of every famous "Italian" pre-1860 and try to get their descriptions changed. Columbus is described as Italian, Galileo is described as Italian, Leonardo and Michelangelo are Italian on here, and we've got people from Ireland and England described as "Irish" and 'English" well before these states existed (going back to the Early Middle Ages).
 * How he's described does not hinge on language or ethnicity. I cited numerous sources calling him an "Italian," and even sought a third opinion from an admin who agrees that it's valid to use this language on Polo (based on reliable sources). These decisions are usually made because the individual in question had an impact beyond a particular region. Like other Italian explorers, or famous artists, scientists and philosophers from Italy, Polo had a profound influence on Italy as a whole -he's part of Italian folklore (remember the myth of Polo introducing pasta to Italy?), and was an inspiration to later Italian explorers in the Age of Discovery. The question is: Was Polo an iconic Italian explorer, long a part of Italian history and culture, and is he commonly understood this way? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick follow-up: "Mediterranean" is not even remotely comparable to "Italian". There is no state or nationality called "Mediterranean," nor has there ever been. Italy was not just a 'region' -it was the heart of the Roman Empire, was populated by "Italic" tribes, who went on to form an Italian nation, which later became a modern state. It followed the same pattern that moved other European countries to statehood. The real issue is that you and likeminded editors (who seem to be in a minority here) want to deny a people their pre-state history, which is absurd and ultimately indefensible. This is not even a debate on articles about England, Germany or France, even though the same naive arguments could be used in all these cases. The problem for you is that the terms we use to describe these people today -Italian, French, English, German, Irish etc -are far older than many seem to believe, while there was never any attempt to group "Mediterraneans" (which to this day isn't even a proper word) under a single label. The sheer number of sources describing MP as "Italian" should've put this issue to bed a long time ago. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

request to revert Mikola22's edit back to the original wording
Mikola is really  concerned with whether the lead describes MP as "Italian or "Venetian" and seems to think "Italian" is an anachronism. He's insistent on replacing the wording "Marco Polo was an Italian merchant and explorer from the Republic of Venice" with "Marco Polo was a Venetian merchant, explorer and writer", and has defended his edit by citing the Rfc he started to get this wording changed.

The problem with this Rfc is that it attracted a number of editors who were as ignorant of the subject as he is: they cited "anachronism" as the reason for supporting his proposition. As I've shown upthread, "Italian" isn't anachronistic at any point over the last 2000 years: it was used in Roman imperial times, remained in use throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, and is the oldest surviving ethnicity in Europe.

This strange little quirk also manifested on the Christopher Columbus article, where editors tried disputing the historical nature of "Italian" and tried getting the lead changed to "Genoese". But a much larger consensus quite wisely emerged from the other direction, with a little help from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

''"Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa." ''

Since there's nothing "anachronistic" about "Italian", what's the other rationale for changing the wording? Sources have been produced describing MP as either an "Italian explorer" or a descendant of an "Italian merchant family" (see p. 87), and Polo's historical impact profoundly impacted Italy beyond the Republic of Venice. His Travels influenced Italian literature for many centuries, later Italian explorers like Columbus, and produced many myths that have since entered Italian folklore. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jonathan f1, do you need help to make a RfC?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am probably going to present this to the RS noticeboard and see what they say, and then might RfC it.
 * Let me be clear right now: I have no personal opinion on whether MP's described as "Italian", "Venetian" or both (they're all accurate depending on context). I am concerned with the reasoning that was used to make this change and want a better explanation. If the argument is that "Italian" is anachronistic in the 13th Century, that's false and has been shown to be false. If the argument is that no reliable sources describe him as "Italian", that's also false and was shown as much. If the argument is that the sources describing him as "Venetian" are consciously using this term to avoid "Italian", there isn't any evidence this is the case. I can produce sources using "Italian" to describe Polo, Polo's family ("Italian merchants", see above) and the Republic of Venice in the 13th Century (an "Italian city-state") -the terms are compatible, not oppositional.
 * If someone can offer a reasonable explanation for making this change that's historically sound and consistent with reliable sources, I'll support the edit and go about my merry way. But falling short of that, I can't stand when editors manipulate the rules to push biased edits that have little or no effect on the quality and reliability of an article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * head over to Reliable sources/Noticeboard where I opened a new section. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Last "Known" Living Descendent?
At the end of the article there is a statement about Marco Polo's "last living descendent." Is it really possible that we know he has only one descendent alive today? Both sources simply make this statement with no evidence. Should this be changed to "last known living descendent"? Qwertyu2244 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As Marco Polo did not have a son, there exist many Polo families and as passed over 700 years it is probably impossible to genealogically trace correctly as well already after 7 generations share of DNA is less than 1% so this information is pointless and useless.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)