Talk:Marco Polo's birthplace

Why keep it
1: the section on birthplace was removed by the spotlight team. 2: the argument on birthplace keeps flaring up on the Polo article, wasting editor's time in explaining things over and over again. Keep that talk page for Marco Polo, not the place where he was born.

3: this article is supposed to examine all evidence and present the facts, informing people as to why we can't say wether it's Venice or Korcula.

4: debate is ongoing as to which sources are reliable.

5: give it some time, I cannot do all this on my own.

6: check the talk page at Marco Polo for past discussion on the subject, there is more than enough to justify a separate article.

Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What "spotlight team"? When? If there are arguments on the main article then surely all this new article will do is move the arguments here. How does that help? I still see no reason for a separate article. noq (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See Spotlight, they did a good job, you can check the state of the article before and after. My intent is to move the arguments here and leave a good article free from constant nationalistic edits, explaining and examining the evidence has taken so much space on the MP talk page that I feel the creation of a dedicated article is justified. The article needs more sources, and reliable ones at that, but I do not have any at the moment. Incidentally, Shakespeare has a separate article, Shakespeare's Birthplace. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
I've restored the article to my own version. Please, tell your reason: you will be welcomed (I mean something more thant "bias"). IMHO it is bias to presente the K. theory as... a "theory", at the same level to a "Venice theory". This K. theory is so shilly!.--151.76.121.84 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're of course entitled to have an opinion, but as long as it is humble, and hasn't been published by a reliable source, you're hereby kindly asked to resist from adding it back to the article. Please be aware that repeatedly adding original research without backing it up (using reputable sources) will be considered as vandalism. --Danares (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... what I asked you was to provide sources for your "opinion". Why you don't want to do it? BTW "Il Milione" is a reiable source. Isn't it?--151.76.121.84 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trolling? It isn't. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Scholars ... (pasted from Marco Polo talk page archive)
Here some examples of what scholars said about Marco. Anybody can list here, a serious source supporting Korcula?
 * 1) Henry Cabot Lodge: "born in Venice"
 * 2) Michael Burgan: "born in Venice"
 * 3) Amir D. Aczel: "born in Venice"
 * 4) Antonio Gallenga: "born in Venice"
 * 5) Kathleen McFarren: "born in Venice"
 * 6) Steven Oftinoski: "born in Venice"
 * 7) Charles Knight: "born in Venice"
 * 8) Conor Reilly: "born in Venice"
 * 9) Ben Jonson: "born in Venice"
 * 10) Samuel Griswold Goodrich: "born in Venice"
 * 11) Luigi Foscolo: "born in Venice"
 * 12) The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography: "born in Venice"
 * 13) Marshall Cavendish Corporation: "born in Venice"
 * 14) George Walsh: "born in Venice"
 * 15) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages: "born in Venice"
 * 16) James Augustus St. John: "born in Venice"
 * 17) A.B.Poland: "born in Venice"
 * 18) Syed Manzoorul Islam: "born in Venice"
 * 19) R.D.Mallery: "born in Venice"
 * 20) C.E.Lester: "born in Venice"
 * 21) Diana Childress: "born in Venice"
 * 22) Ronald Latham: "born in Venice"
 * 23) Manuel Komroff: "born in Venice"
 * 24) H.Yule-H.Cordier: "born in Venice"
 * Do you seriously call all of these scholars? Had you actually read all those Google books hits you've listed, you would have noticed, that at least some of them do not claim at all what you're implying. Your last source, especially the second part of page 19, note 3 seems particularly interesting. --Danares (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a document supporting Dalmatia: "(P)olo, questi veneron orrigamente de dalmatia" --Danares (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make it clear that it wasn't me who posted the nonsense above, rather the IP user who misquotes references as described below. The page you linked, Danares, is a very good find, although it fails to translate the phrase correctly: the original text mentions Polo as "they" ( Italian surnames are not plurarised, the correct translation is Polo, these came originally from Dalmatia), I presume the document is about the place of origin or the onomastics of Venetian families. It is already widely accepted that the family originated from Dalmatia, and it's a shame that the translation is wrong, we could have used the page as reference. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Danares: a possible Dalmatian origin of "famiglia Polo" is well known. But from Sibenik/Sebenico not from Korcula/Curzola.--151.76.106.157 (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User Brutal, I am not the author of the "nonsense", which was copy&pasted from the MP talkpage. Maybe it's correct that not all the authors are scholar: we should check them. But on the other side against this list, you have presented a single booklet for children, that you try to present as a valid source. Everybody can judge who "misplace references". --151.76.106.157 (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Marko Polo i istočni Jadran u 13. stoljeću
I'm not convinced that this source is being properly quoted or even supports the IP's POV, the same text is quoted in this ecstatic letter to the Croatian Prime Minister. How can the director of an association that "proposes the establishment of an International Committee, based in Zagreb, to develop & progress the work of The International Marco Polo Centre in Korcula" use the same book to support his view?. As can be seen here, even the author mentioned is wrong. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Brutal. You have not understood that the source are the acta of a congress. In other words severel papers with different authors. Everybody can check that the quote is correct.--151.76.106.157 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Books supporting Kurcola hip.
It is possible tor search in google books, to find some sources supporting Kurcola: see Marco AND Polo AND Korcula --151.76.106.157 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but I really don't see what a search engine result is doing here. We are all capable of typing those words. Should I start posting all my results as well? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the first 11 pages. No valid results supporting kurcola (except travel books, usually reporting the "possibily and 2 booklet ofr children). Show your results as you like.--151.76.106.157 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Books, sources and whatnot
Instead of adding various book sources and links either mentioning Korcula or Venedig, the article needs some publications in which distinguished historic scholars address the issue. It is good to mention the origins of both theories but after that an assessment by historic of both theories and the origins is needed. Their assessment and context knowledge is needed to address things like the following questions: For all those and similar questions we need the expertise of historical scholars. The article won't progress unless somebody starts digging out academic papers dealing with these issues/topics. So instead of listing large number of books not being really authoritative on the issue for each theory or to potentially start edit warring on the discussion page, somebody should search for academic papers. It is not up to us to assert both theories based on our knowledge or gut feeling, but instead we are supposed to tell what authoritative sources say on the issue and regarding this aspect the article still falls short.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Giovanni Battista Ramusio considered reliable or not?
 * Is it likely that Ramusion had access to lost documents or even somewhat reliable hearsay/oral sources (since was much closer timewise than later scholars)?
 * What's the assessment the various of Korcula theories and the real or allegend documents supporting it. How are those documents correctly interpreted?
 * I'm currently trawling through scribd.com, but I'm not sure if it is copyvio to use that site. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2010 (UTCt)
 * Well you can certainly use the content, i.e. if there's a possibly illegal copy of some useful paper, you still can read and simply cite the paper itself without providing the scribd.com link in the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Km. that's the point! I totally agree with you. A booklet for children is not a source, a Brutal claims. Google books (see above) gives hundreds of results with Marco AND Polo AND korcula, but I was not able to find a single valide (i.e.: scientific) supporting Kurcola. On the contrary, hundreds of books says he was from Venice.--151.76.106.157 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Venice as hometown in "Il Milione"
I copy&paste from here. In "il Milione" Venice is cleary described as the hometown of the Polos.--151.76.106.157 (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

From The Travels of Marco Polo by Rustichello da Pisa and Marco Polo


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


 * CHAPTER I "It came to pass in the year of Christ 1260, when Baldwin was reigning at Constantinople, that Messer Nicolas Polo, the father of my lord Mark, and Messer Maffeo Polo, the brother of Messer Nicolas, were at the said city of CONSTANTINOPLE, whither they had gone from Venice with their merchants' wares. Now these two Brethren, men singularly noble, wise, and provident, took counsel together to cross the GREATER SEA on a venture of trade; so they laid in a store of jewels and set forth from Constantinople, crossing the Sea to SOLDAIA.
 * CHAPTER IX Seeing well enough that what the Legate said was just, they observed: "But while the Pope is a-making, we may as well go to Venice and visit our households." So they departed from Acre and went to Negropont, and from Negropont they continued their voyage to Venice. On their arrival there, Messer Nicolas found that his wife was dead, and that she had left behind her a son of fifteen years of age, whose name was MARCO; and 'tis of him that this Book tells. The Two Brothers abode at Venice a couple of years, tarrying until a Pope should be made.
 * CHAPTER X When the Two Brothers had tarried as long as I have told you, and saw that never a Pope was made, they said that their return to the Great Kaan must be put off no longer. So they set out from Venice, taking Mark along with them, and went straight back to Acre, where they found the Legate of whom we have spoken.
 * CHAPTER XVIII. What more shall I say? Having left Kiacatu they travelled day by day till they came to Trebizond, and thence to Constantinople, from Constantinople to Negropont, and from Negropont to Venice. And this was in the year 1295 of Christ's Incarnation.
 * 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 o 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.


 * We need academic papers/publication by the historians (secondary sources) and report their assessments rather than interpreting/assessing the (primary) sources ourselves.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems (see the list above), that all historians consider Polo Venetian, as something of obvious. It seems that do not care about a "Korcula hipotesys". No one of the listed book mention it, event to deny it. I was not able to find a single source supporting it (belive to me, I've tried). What shall we do?--151.76.106.157 (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Listed
The article has been listed on the Fringe theories noticeboard. BE——Critical __Talk 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion is at Marco Polo
Just in case anyone misunderstands, the discussion should take place at Talk:Marco Polo. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock IP
Editors be advised the 151.76 IP is the very well known sock IP of the highly disruptive Italian nationalist user User:PIO/Luigi 28, who was community banned for disruption and sockpuppeteering months ago, but remains very active on enWiki and likes to recruit meatpuppets on itWiki and various forums. The user is a serious problem on Dalmatia-related articles and should be reverted on sight as a deterrent since his IP is too variable for a range block.User:DIREKTOR(User talk:DIREKTOR)18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? 151. is shared by MILLIONS of people in Italy, being the IP of INFOSTRADA, the 2nd largest Italian internet provider. Are we all "sock" of MR. Soandso? I suppose that a skilled thechinc, can easly determine my geogrphical location. Try something better, mr. Direktor.--151.76.106.157 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Marco's home
It's an hoax. That the source. It's was built 200 years later. Why Brutadeluxe revert this source? Let us discuss!--151.76.99.240 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.76.99.240 (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another source "Per quanto riguarda la pretesa casa natale di Marco Polo a Curzola, la cosa volge al ridicolo. Trattasi nientemeno di una costruzione gotico-veneziana del XVI secolo, epoca dell'edificazione della città stessa e che non può quindi..."
 * Anoter source " Da qualche tempo in effetti gli storici locali stanno divulgando la favoletta che il celebre viaggiatore, appartenente alla famiglia veneziana dei Polo e veneziano come si definisce lui stesso, sarebbe stato in realtà un croato. Risibili le argomentazioni:(...) perché a Curzola ai turisti viene mostrata la casa di Marco Polo (che è nato nel 1254, mentre l’elegante palazzetto gotico-veneziano che sarebbe la sua casa natale risale al XV secolo).
 * Basically, you have shown that you cannot be trusted with keeping a neutral point of view and to truthfully quote sources. Furthermore, your pattern and style of editing, and everchanging IP address is consistent with that of a banned user. The preface u shby Alvise Zorzi in "Sulle ali del leone" is however an invaluable source, and his comment on the subject can be used. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All my edits are based on sources. If they don't fit your own POV it is not my problem. Everybody disagree with you. Everybody can see that all your accuses of forgery were baseless. I've asked you several time your sources, you never give them! It seems, simply, that you can not present them. You should know that Alvise Zorzi is one of the most important Marco Polo's biogarpher (see ALVISE ZORZI!) About the IP and style: I suggest to discuss with sources, not with this shilly accuses.--151.76.99.240 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you get an account and make us both happy, being transparent does a lot for trust. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will think about it. Meanwhile 1) it is not hard to identify me, nor to check I am one of this "sock" (just check my location) 2) respect my sources. I've showed that Marco's home is an hoax, provide sources showing the opposite or let it be.151.76.99.240 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You simply have not shown anything to be a "hoax". Your sources quite obviously do not even come close to doing so. The fact that you are here on a mission to "reveal hoaxes" says a lot about your neutrality on this. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that this story is an hoax. But I support my edits with sources, and they are not poor just because you say so. It seems you are here to support the POV for Kurcola, but you do not present sources. Who is the bad guy? My suggestion is still valid. Find some trustable source, supporting Kurcola.--151.76.99.240 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to understand: you've not somehow "discovered" the lost birthplace of Marco Polo by posting the opinions of some Italian author. The birthplace of Marco Polo is unknown. There are only theories and hypotheses. One is Venice (stronger), the other is Korčula (weaker). Neither is a "hoax", in spite of nationalist claims from both sides. Here we can only talk about the opinions of various scholars on where Polo came from. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes... Nobody supports Kocula, that the fact. Present your sources.--151.76.99.240 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, how... arrogant. :) Once again: the sources for the existence of the Korčula hypothesis are in the article, so no "that not a fact". Furthermore, since we agree ("yes yes") that the birthplace of Marco Polo is unknown we will not be presenting any one hypothesis as a "hoax".


 * Also please note: revert-warring will not help you make the article say what you want, of that you can be sure. The only way you can change the article is through discussion here. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no... I do not see any sources at all in the article supporting Kurcola. May you be so gentle to show me where are? Anyway all historians (see above) just says "VENICE", an nobosy i sso shilly to say Kurcola.
 * Note, please. To delete referencied edits IS edit war. That what you have done!--151.76.99.240 (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that this is all you can present. Sadly, Stockwell do not present evidences for this documents, which is unknow to all serious historians. --151.76.99.240 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, not quite.
 * These are but an example, of course. You'll notice I'm limiting myself to non-Croatian/non-Yugoslav authors (while you are only citing Italian authors). Without making any accusations of bias, please note that there are probably about two dozen Croatian publications citing Korčula as a possible birthplace. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my God! Again Burgman, the author of booklets for children!:-) I've listen dozens of angosaxon non italians authors, they all say VENICE. Anyway what's wrong in Italian authors? Anyway, cite REIABLE Croatina authors.--151.76.99.240 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my God! Again Burgman, the author of booklets for children!:-) I've listen dozens of angosaxon non italians authors, they all say VENICE. Anyway what's wrong in Italian authors? Anyway, cite REIABLE Croatina authors.--151.76.99.240 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing content from the article is not edit-warring. What you are doing is edit warring, please see WP:EDIT WAR. You have breached WP:3RR. 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert, 4th revert. In the interest of furthering trust an cooperation here, I'm asking you for a show of good faith, you will not be reported if you please undo your latest revert now. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite I am not sklilled in Wik. rules, I suppose to be OK. The reverts where on different edits. Now tell me. LACKING OR SOURCES, ARE YOU PLAYING WITH RULES?151.76.99.240 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone can come up with a source saying that he was born in the Malibran house, then it can stay, otherwise it will have to go as it would only be a house that he lived in. Anyway, why was it demolished? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * YES I AM. :) If you edit-war, you will be immediately reported. Quite simply: the only way to change the article for more than a few minutes is here - on the talkpage. When your edit is reverted, stop and discuss. When editors reach an agreement, then insert whatever was agreed upon. That's how it works. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sig. IP please understand, in the simplest terms, you are campaigning to present one referenced legitimate hypothesis as a "hoax" by citing scholars who think the other hypothesis is right. Neither is a "hoax". Moderation is necessary in your approach. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The journalist Kristijan Knez opines that the Korčula theory is based on the mention of a Polo family on the island in a 15th century document from in the 1962 edition of Encyclopaedia of the Department of Lexicography."
 * This is not "criticism". Quite the opposite. It shows that the Lexicography Department has records of an actual Polo family living in Korčula at that time. Unless one is actually trying to allege the Lexicography Department actually tried to forge documents 50 years ago (LoL :). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

-- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Captured in Curzola
Kurcola supporters do not like Ramusio, because he said Marco was Venetian. But Ramusio became a trustable source, when he tell us that Marco was captured in Curzola. Funny Amusing! But it seems that Marco was not captured there, as Ramusio claimed. See. I will check furthermore this possibilty.151.76.99.240 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I recognize the poor English ("funny!" :). This is either Luigi 28 or someone who talks a lot like him... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If you are so sure, report me. Meanwile, I will wait for your sources.--151.76.99.240 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Stockwell's manuscript, British Museum Additional MS 12475 and the tithe
I'm presuming that the manuscript mentioned by Stockwell is the same one shown here by korcula.net. If this is true then he might have taken someone else's word for it, as I have already explained to Danares that the translation shown on the website is plainly wrong. Stockwell does not name the manuscript's title. In addition to that, the manuscript is clearly about several families, as I doubt that the Polos had at least three different coats of arm. It's a bad scan in corsivo and I can't read more than the highlighted phrase. It would be a shame if the whole K Theory was simply based on one man's bad translation. I've also found this scientific paper, Accounting records of the medieval Korčula commune, it mentions some families in a brief extract, but makes no mention of a Polo family. Did the author simply overlook to mention a famous family, were they exempt from paying tithe, or were they just not there in the early 15th century? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brutal. I add that I read "They come, originally from Dalmatia". So from Dalmatia and not from "Korcula". :Being Burgman not valid, we have no reliable sources supporting Kurcola.--151.76.99.240 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not get to "proclaim" Burgman as "invalid", don't get that false impression. Also, nobody is claiming that Venice isn't the stronger theory - merely that Korčula exists as a hypothesis as well. Again Sig. IP, listing people who support one hypothesis does not automatically disprove another. The point of the matter is that we do not know where this person was born, and that this article is essentially a place to describe the various scientific views on the subject.
 * In short, you are not about to discover the long lost birthplace of Marco Polo. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In short: I do no see a single source claiming "we do not know where Marco Polo is born"; this is just a claim of yours. Scholars do not care about this shilly question. IP IP Hurra! (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Burgman IS invalid...

Relevance of Ramusio's biography
Sig. IP, could you please explain what that section has to do with anything? There are only two significant facts in there 1) Ramusio states his belief that "Andrea Polo de San Felice" was Marco Polo's grandfather (a statement which scholars have been unable to confirm in any way, which must be implied clearly). 2) Ramusio makes no mention of Korčula.

That's significant. Ramusio's description of Polo's house/grave is not. Sig. IP, please note: nobody is disputing that Polo lived in Venice, perhaps even under the Teatro in the house described by Ramusio, nor that he was buried in Venice. We are talking about where he was born. The jist of it is that the significant facts from that section amout to one sentence: ""Marco Polo's first biographer, the Venetian Giovanni Battista Ramusio, opines in his book Of Navigation and Travel that Marco Polo's grandfather was one Andrea Polo de San Felice, making no mention of Korčula or any alternative place of origin.""

The section should quite obviously be surmised in a similar manner to the above and merged with the "Traditional historical interpretation" section. The section is now a pile of irrelevant info on Polo's house/grave in Venice. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ramusio is a primary source and it is not on you to confute him. All secondary (historian) source say VENICE. No secondary source says Korcula. --151.76.99.240 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not confuting him at all, which you would know had you read the above. I am merely weeding out those of his statements which are not relevant with respect to the birthplace of Marco Polo. We all know he had a palazzo in Venice. --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note
Just a brief note: editors please be mindful of the difference between the "c" and "č" characters. "Č" is pronounced "ch". "Korčula" written in English characters would be transliterated into "Korchula". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

House in Venice
In a 2001 Gazzettino di Venezia article, published here, the house is described as being built "around 1280", when Polo would have been 26. Definitely not the birth place. This has to go in, anyone against it? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not me. Sig. 151? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon further investigation Giovanni Battista Ramusio's significance in this issue is rapidly dropping. To my knowledge, he does not in fact state that Andrea Polo (the grandfather) was a Venetian, and generally seems to make no comment on Marco Polo's birthplace. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hallo everybody. Im Mr. IP, finally registred (NB for some days I will use a dynamic Telecom Italia Mobile IP).
 * 1)Brutal.: I never wrote "birthplace". I wrote "Polo's house". Anyway there are dozens of sources talking about this subject. Furthermore here is the link showing the memorial stone, on the back side of Malibran theatre, remembering "Marco Polo's houses" ; here is "Corte del Milion", as described by Ramusio . Use this new sources as you like.
 * 2)DIREKTOR: what "seems" to you is unrelevant. Find a source stating that Ramusio was an idiot, than insert it. Meanwhile no personal comments and no "personal researches".--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back Sig. IP.
 * 1) I know you never wrote "birthplace", but this article happens to be about his birthplace. Find a source suggesting he might've been born there.
 * 2) Ramusio was not an idiot, in spite of your insulting remarks, he was just not talking about Marco Polo's birthplace. Does Ramusio claim Andrea Polo (the grandfather) was a Venetian citizen? If so, then fine - please quote. If he just claims that was his name without talking about the origins of the grandfather, he's irrelevant.
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'had no aim to be offensive with you or with any other user. But I like to joke. Stop for now: my mobile connection is slow!:- (217.202.53.239 (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC) --IP IP Hurra! (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I took no offense. I am merely wondering what exactly does Ramusio say on the subject of Polo's origin? We all know he lived in Venice, and scholars seem to have located his house there - this is all very interesting (I'm told my family is of Venetian origin) but this isn't very relevant to the subject of his birthplace. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I got myself to a bookshop and checked out Peter Ackroyd's Venice. He says that the house had long been the Polos' and that Marco completely rebuilt it with new foundations using the money he got from the sale of Kublai's gifts. It could still be the birthplace, Ackroyd makes no mention of Korcula aside from place of capture. I didn't buy the book, but I'll get a page number and add it instead of the Gazzettino reference. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good! Meanwhile I've found this interesting reportage by "La Repubblica", which BTW, writes about the "Marco Polo's birth house".--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets not go into newspapers. Croatian newspapers are full of references to Korčula as the birthplace... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisionists is POV
Where are this revisionists scholars? I don't see them, nor debates. Sources, please.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am frankly surprised you object to the wording. You disagree that Venice is traditionally viewed as the birthplace of Marco Polo? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no revisionist scholars! Croatian Tourist Board is not a reliable source!--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try again. Do you disagree that Venice is traditionally viewed as the birthplace of Marco Polo? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! And in the some way Startford on Avon is "traditionally viewed" as the birthplace of William Shakespeare by "traditional scholars", while "revisionists" have sought to identify the island of Sicily as the real birthplace of William. Read here to believe ! (if you can read Italian). Now, DIREKTOR, I will try again; who are those "revisonist scholars"? --IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Point out: we know nothing about William's childhood and there is no documents which supports his birth in Stanford:-)--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring
User:IP IP Hurra!, you are now a registered user. Please stop editing the article lead without consensus. It does not matter in the slightest whether the edit was (allegedly) added by someone else, it was disputed, non-consensus and you should not start a WP:EDIT WAR over it. Rather, propose changes on the talkpage and discuss. Again, see WP:BRD.

I certainly hope you will be able to cease with this aggressive behavior and start proper discussion. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agressive????!!?? Me!!???!!! You reintoduced, without discussion, against consensus, the therm "revisionist" deleted by me, and by a 3rd user!!!! SOURCES, I ask SOURCES! "Revisionists" is a POV!-IP IP Hurra! (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you. It seems all you do here is start edit-wars. I did not introduce the term "revisionists" or "traditional", it was in the original draft of the article by Brutaldeluxe, and I can see no reason to change it into your preferred wording of "Korčula is a hoax invented by 'some Croats', a conspiracy contrived to marginally increase the tourist revenue of one obscure Croatian village" :P. You did not have consensus to alter the lead. Please discuss. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've warned both of these editors about 3RR, blocks will be forthcoming if this continues. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks so much Dougweller. My only goal here was to introduce WP:BRD as the guideline by which changes to the lead are introduced. I want this article stable, that is all. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The word was delete here. You reintroduced it without discussion and ignoring all the repeated invites to present sources.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't reasonably warn one editor without warning the other unless there's a BLP or copyvio issue, etc. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

suggestion
It's written: ...although the consensus among historians is that Polo was born in the territory of the Republic of Venice...

There is no such consensus, because no source said so. If M.P. was born in 1254 in Korčula, then he was not born in Republic of Venice, since Korčula was not a part of that republic in that moment. It was occupied by one Venetian nobleman but got free a year or 2 before 1254, and it was occupied again a year or two after 1254. Check some more detailed history of Korčula. 83.131.67.108 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In point of fact, the overwhelming consensus among historians is that Marco Polo was born in Venice. I repeat: this is a simple fact. This is the biography of the most important "historian" who supported the "Korcula theory": dr. Zivan Filippi, the director of the "Kompas" travel agency (!!!) in Korcula.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And probably, according Orlandini, the Polos come to Venice from Istambul before that Marco was born. This article, as many other, is a shame for Wikipedia.--87.2.141.189 (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality/fringe theory
I think the article is neutral enough, but really needs expansion on the reaction to the K theory, as is required by Fringe theories.

Jimbo Wales: Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not neutral and we have not a minority view, because the Kurcola possibility is not supported by single reliable source, so it is not a scientific theory. The only way to have a neutral article is to present K. theory for what it is: an hoax.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, the article merely needs to document the existance of the theory, not to show it as a fact. That's neutrality. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. The intro is a non neutral unsupported POV. Where are the "debate"? All historians say Venice; nobody mentions Korcula, even to say it is an hoax. (Nobody loose time in this, even to confute!) And I do not see, Croatian Tourist Board's claim as a "debate". Where are "revisionist" historians? I do not see a single scholar supporting the possibility. I've tried in all the possible way, to ask sources supporting these claims, but I'm becoming tired to ask. And this is just the intro. Now, present the sources, or delete the two claims. Regards.--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Anyway I propose to rewrite intro, in a totally different way, avoiding "historians" claims, that should be a compromise. Let me know....--IP IP Hurra! (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it needs rewriting. We should keep it short, as there really isn't much to go by so far. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)