Talk:Polo

__NOINDEX__

Misuse of citations
Dear editors, please read the actual references cited in the article and do not be browbeaten by aggressive nationalist users. It is common sense that you use a citation to support a statement; if the citation does not support the conclusion you are making, you cannot use it, and you have an unsourced statement.

For example, let's analyse this current lede statement in our Wikipedia article:

"Although the exact origins of the game are unknown it most likely began in Ancient Persia between the 6th century BC and the 1st century AD, as a simple game played by mounted nomads of Ancient Persian and Turkic origin in Central Asia" 

First of all, this is unintelligible and contradictory - did it begin in Persia or Central Asia?

Secondly, this is NOT even in the source cited! The actual sources state:

"The origins of the game of polo are shrouded in the mist of history. China, Iran, Manipur, Mongolia, Pakistan and Tibet all claim to be the birthplace of polo. It can be safely assumed that it began as a simple folk game played by nomadic tribes in central Asia. Westward and eastward expansion followed, to Byzantium and China, most likely along the trail of the legendary Silk Road." (Laffaye, Horace A. (29 May 2009). The Evolution of Polo. pp. 5–6)

"In all probability, polo developed from rough equestrian games played by the mounted nomadic peoples of Central Asia, both Iranian and Turkic [NOTE: here, the reference to 'Iranian' should not be mistaken for Iranian nationality, but the broader ethnolinguistic Iranian peoples living in Central Asia in ancient times - a Wikipedian user has deliberately reworded this 'Iranian' somehow to 'Ancient Persian' in this Wikipedia article]. In Afghanistan, such a game survived into the twentieth century. In its original form buzkashi was a dusty melee in which hundreds of mounted tribesmen fought over the headless carcass of a goat or calf. The winner was the hardy rider who managed to grab the animal by the leg and drag it clear of the pack.... but it was further to the west in Iran (formerly known in the West as Persia), that polo was developed into the game it is today, played with a wooden stick, chowgan, and a round ball, guy." Hong, Fan; Mangan, J. A. (18 November 2009). (Evolution of Sport in Asian Society: Past and Present. Routledge. p. 309)

"A game of Central Asian origin, polo was first played in Persia (Iran) at dates given from the 6th century BC to the 1st century AD." (https://www.britannica.com/sports/polo)

The first two are very reliable sources, both being books specifically on the history of polo or Asian sport.

Finally, I removed the statement that the "first recorded tournament was between Turkomen and Persians in 600 bc". Why? Because the source was a hotel and accomodation website, which is not reliable. It also does not make sense and is not chronologically consistent with other more reliable sources above. For one, there was most certainly no such thing as Turkmen or Turks in 600 bc central Asia. If someone can find a better source, we can put it back up. Or alternatively, it can be left up but there should be a citation needed tag. Regardless, it does not mean polo originated in Iran.

It seems pretty clear: an early form of polo originated in middle Asia (modern buzkashi), formalised in Persia (modern chovgan), and even further in South Asia (modern pulu), where it developed into something more recognisable to European polo. We shouldn't ignore the history of polo before India, nor should we ignore its history before Iran. Must look at its historical evolution as a whole. 86.30.66.111 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From the 6th to the 11th century AD, Turks migrated to Central Asia. Before this date, Iranian peoples such as Scythians, Parthians... lived in Central Asia. Therefore, this article is not contradictory at all.
 * The game of Turkomans and Iranians has no source and was recently invented by ethnic nationalists, but the fact that the first polo game was played in Iran in the 6th century BC is clearly stated by the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica. Turkmen live in Turkmenistan today, but in the past, one of the cities of Turkmenistan was the main capital of the Parthians(Nisa), in the event that the Turks entered Central Asia and present-day Turkmenistan from the 6th to the 11th century AD.
 * So I strongly criticize the polo history section of this Wikipedia article. The origin of this sport is mentioned in Central Asia, which is consistent with other available sources, then Iranian and Turkish people are mentioned, and in the main sources such as Britannica, Turks are not mentioned at all. Because they did not live there at that time Mitrayasna (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Encyclopædia Britannica is not a personal site or blog. It is also not a book written by an ordinary person. Encyclopedia Britannica is the most authoritative encyclopedia on the planet. In this encyclopedia, it is clearly stated that the first polo game was played in Iran. So I added this tip to Wikipedia. We must not allow nationalistic sentiments to obscure reality.
 * I even expect you to follow Encyclopædia Britannica and remove this book from Wikipedia's sources that it claims to be false against Britannica.
 * (Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic family within the Altaic language group. They are historically and linguistically connected with the Tujue, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century CE founded an empire stretching from what is now Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea) Mitrayasna (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , and I'm assuming User:Tomas990.
 * I actually wrote some of the original citations you quote (risking a WP:SPS infraction here :) ), and you're preaching to the choir on the Iranian nationalist thing, as you know from my page. It would help if you used just the one ID. I gave up here when you edited my good content, and I see it's pretty much back there now.
 * Best regards Ssaco (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Refactored as above was confusing; not properly threaded. (Also, "this book" mentioned above, seems like a WP:RS, published by Routledge.) 175.39.74.37 (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Origins
A recent editor removed Turkic peoples - just prior to my recent edit, and partly what motivated my additions to the infobox. Sources definitely say both (with Iranic peoples), so I do not think that should be removed.

Also: the detailed, secondary sources in the article give the origins of polo as being from equestrian nomads of Central Asia, and that then Persians formalised the rules and developed the game from its simple beginnings. Both aspects were important in engendering the modern game, so if one is included in infobox, I believe both should be.

Here is the sequence of recent changes: I just thought I would explain my approach. Let me know if anyone wants to discuss my edits. Thanks. 175.39.67.82 (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Before
 * addition of "origins" to box
 * an editor saying " text did not match the sourse". (Just Encyc Brit looked at, I think) and Central Asia, nomads, etc., were deleted
 * "firstlabel =Origins" parameter deleted
 * my most recent change

First played polo
Help me

I wanted to let you know that I have altered your entry to the infobox at polo and explain why. While you're right that often the "First" parameter is used to list the first game played in a sport, because it is such an ancient game, I wanted to fully explain its origins. For that reason, I have labelled the that paramter as "origins", which is a legitimate, and, to me anyway, more useful approach in this case.
 * See also: "Origins" section above for earlier post and related earlier discussion at use of citations

I know the the Encyclopaedia Britannica cite you added does say "first played in Persia" but it also says "A game of Central Asian origin". The preexisting sources, which are more detailed works, talk about the origins of polo with nomads, and that Persians then formalised the rules and developed it from its simple beginnings. I think that is important too, so I have included that in the infobox as well. I believe this gives a clearer picture. If you don't think this is correct, can we please talk more about it on the article talk page? I would be pleased to discuss with you. My thanks, 175.39.67.82 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please put the basic information of the game in the right place (I mean the Origins episode), thank you Mitrayasna (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What would the correct place for "origins" be? You're right that "First" is usually used for "match -first when and where played". However the template is set up for other labels to be applied. My contention is the for sport of this type (ancient) when we cannot know the exact first match, thus is not the best (most informative) use of that parameter. The template for the infobox allows for labels that diverge from that.
 * Also, going by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE anything in the infobox needs to be canvassed in the article body; I am not really seeing that there.
 * Lastly, I attempted a good faith explanation here and on your own talk pagee, and hoped for a discussion, but instead got a vandalism aspersion. That stings. However, I see that I may have inadvertently gone over the WP:3RR, so if you would like me to self-revert myself, I will. I have only good intentions for the article and it seems somewhat plagued by ethno-nationalistic tendencies. See, for example, above discussions. 175.39.67.82 (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the Encyclopædia Britannica it goes from the 6th century BC to the 1st century BC, which confirms your point that we don't know for sure. If we write this course in Wikipedia, do you think the problem will be solved? Because I think it's very helpful, Encyclopaedia Britannica, one of Wikipedia's most authoritative sources, also mentions the first play of polo. Mitrayasna (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The origin of the game is different from the first played. In the Wikipedia article about Football, it introduces the origin of the play of football in China and two centuries BC. But they writes about the first game in the UK.

It is stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica that polo originated in Central Asia, and in the history and origins section of this detailed article, it is stated that the Iranians and Turks invented this game in Central Asia. But immediately after this, Encyclopedia Britannica says that the first polo game was played in Iran.

The names of Iran and Persia express a concept Britannica : A game of Central Asian origin, polo was first played in Persia (Iran) at dates given from the 6th century BC


 * , there are two very different versions of the Encyclopædia Britannica – the Eleventh Edition of 1911, which as you say was (110 years ago) arguably "the most authoritative encyclopaedia on the planet". And then there's the modern version, which is of highly questionable reliability – please see our entry on it at Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am very surprised by your words especially since you seem experienced. Encyclopaedia Britannica, the most reliable English encyclopedia in the world, is less reliable than a person's personal book?! I saw the Wikipedia manual, but I don't understand how it says that Encyclopedia Britannica is suspect. So what can be the reliable source and the first category.
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica is only updated over time. New versions compared to the past are only updated and have the same validity as the past. This is what they taught us in university. If we want to undermine the credibility of this encyclopedia, I think we need many reasons.
 * I hope you will read the short Wikipedia article about Encyclopaedia Britannica. It may help us in this matter. Mitrayasna (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss first before removing the information
Mitrayasna Please let's discuss first before removal of information. Guinness Book of Records had recorded the document, whether you believe it or not, whether you support the Persians or Indians. Besides, Guinness Book of Records can't be lied. I can't tell lies using Guinness Book of Records' name. It's a universal platform. Anyone can access to it. Please see for yourself too. --Haoreima (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mitrayasna Please read the page no. 706 of the 1991 edition of Guinness Book of Records. The website does not display all the records. People need to read from the published books. --Haoreima (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, I am a fan of both of these wonderful countries, but there is something like this in the Guinness records https://guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=Polo&page=1&type=all&max=20&partial=_Results& Mitrayasna (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mitrayasna Please see these! The website doesn't display every records because we need to read from their published book series too. --Haoreima (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has been removed from Guinness books because it was wrong Mitrayasna (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not found in the website doesn't mean not recorded in their annual book series. The website hasn't added all the information from their decades of published books. Please try to understand! Haoreima (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I will be very happy to refer to the new edition of this book Mitrayasna (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Mitrayasna No! Please don't misunderstand it! If something is wrong, they will publicly clarify it. If the recorded fact isn't mentioned again and again, it doesn't mean it's wrong. Neither you nor I know that it was removed. As I have already told you, the website doesn't display all the records of the information of the books of its decade-long publications. Please try to understand. Besides, wikipedia relies on them and information on wikipedia doesn't speak on its own but something like "according to..." Please try to understand. Haoreima (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My friend, this claim is not consistent with logic, nor does it have a specific source. Try to cite Guinness records in your new and printed editions. This claim is very doubtful Mitrayasna (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is even possible that horses were not yet domesticated at this date. Even if they were, they were not yet introduced to the Indian subcontinent. Mitrayasna (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mitrayasna The same information published in previous years aren't included in the publications of later years. Guinness Book of Records is annual. Its annual publication is for the records of that particular years only and not the collection of previous years' records too. So, if published in 1991, no need to be re included in later year's publication until and unless there's any clarification or record being broken by another record. This is for all the records, not only for the case of polo. So, these are the published books as you see! I can't spread lies. It's universal. Besides, its website doesn't display all the records of the decade long publications. --Haoreima (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Most recent genetic analysis pointed to horses having been domesticated 6,000 years ago in what is now Ukraine and Western Kazakhstan. Our (your and my) hypothesis of "maybe not introduced here or there" isn't legitimate. Please don't misunderstand me. I am saying this because wikipedia relies on sources and not on the personal opinions of wikipedians.

but the Guinness World Records (in the Reddit website you showed) says "Deciding what makes it in is difficult, as we know we're going to have to disappoint some record holders. Everyone who breaks a GWR record gets the official certificate but also a caveat that they don't necessarily make it into the book."
 * --Haoreima (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides, to solve the conflict between us, let's highlight (according to...) instead of writing as if it's said by the wikipedia itself. If we say, "According to Encyclopedia Britannica" & "According to Guinness World Records" separately and properly, there's no need for any conflict. Haoreima (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the horse was domesticated in Ukraine at most six thousand years ago, and it is not logical that polo was born in India five thousand one hundred years ago. Now that it is not mentioned in the new editions or on the official website, let us be suspicious of this article because it says something that is not logical against all the authoritative encyclopedias. Mitrayasna (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't deny the fact because Guinness World Records is the primary international authority on the cataloguing and verification of a huge number of world records. The organisation employs record adjudicators to verify the authenticity of the setting and breaking of records. And that's why I have said let's highlight (according to...) instead of writing as if it's said by the wikipedia itself. If we say, "According to Encyclopedia Britannica" & "According to Guinness World Records" separately and properly, there's no need for any conflict. Please try to understand what I am saying so. Haoreima (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, Guinness records are valid, but no record will be removed from the Guinness books unless someone sets a higher record or it is proven that the record had a problem or was a lie. Mitrayasna (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am researching to see if there is another first-class source that mentioned this article, but unfortunately, I have not found anything except the same article that has been removed from the books and the official Guinness World Records website. Mitrayasna (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, please consider whatever you want to consider. But please remember that the website doesn't display everything. Besides, "not included" doesn't mean "removed". Among the huge volume of information of previous decades, they might have selected only a few found captivating. This is just my assumption, though I am not sure. And I am also not sure of your consideration of ("not included in the website" means "Removed"), this is not confirmed. It's just your assumption, maybe right or wrong. But as I have already told you in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1110936084 . It's very long, I can't repeat it again and again. We should include the fact if supported by the Guinness World Records, but by highlighting the fact as "According to GWR" and not as if said by the wikipedia itself. I think this discussion is enough by applying this way of clarification! No need for further conflict. I saw you had a previous conflict with another user on the same topic, polo origin. Btw, I didn't read your and that person's discussions in depth. Btw, I think we should conclude.   Haoreima (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If this record is real, it is one of the most important Guinness records, it does not make sense to remove it.
 * You also assumed
 * Aid has been removed due to its lack of appeal, so according to Wikipedia's rules, I should not post false information. or information that we are not sure of Mitrayasna (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mitrayasna I think you are still misunderstanding me. Not a single record mentioned in 2005 edition will be mentioned again in 2006 edition and subsequent years, until the record is broken by another. In the 2006 edition, other information about the other records, will get their content. This is the system of record books. Record books aren't like other books. In other books, newer edition means adding new information and removing odd ones. Suppose you got a record of being the strongest man on earth in Guinness World Records in the year 2014, it doesn't mean that your name should be mentioned again and again in the 2015, 2016, ...editions. It's not like that. Until your record is broken by another person, there will be no update. This style is not so in case of textbooks or other encyclopedia books. --Haoreima (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why whenever a record is mentioned, the year in which the fact was recorded is always mentioned. This is the custom for every records in the Guinness World Records! --Haoreima (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinness_World_Records#cite_note-23:~:text=Each%20edition%20contains%20a%20selection%20of%20the%20records%20from%20the%20Guinness%20World%20Records%20database%2C%20as%20well%20as%20select%20new%20records%2C%20with%20the%20criteria%20for%20inclusion%20changing%20from%20year%20to%20year.%5B23%5D
 * Every year the criteria are changed and suspicious records are deleted Mitrayasna (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mitrayasna I hope this one will make you agree with me!
 * Mitrayasna The website you showed me doesn't say like what you are saying "Every year the criteria are changed and suspicious records are deleted (your statement)"

They clarified it properly. It's because if all the previous years' information are to be added in the upcoming editions, the book will burst out. That Reddit post (you showed) had also said "we throw away the design every year and start from scratch; we shoot a lot of original photos; we try to get about 3000 new/updated records in there (4000 in total)." It's because new edition means to include new records in majority. Guinness World Records maintains over 53,000 records in its database. But in a single year's edition, only 4000 records are to be published. This doesn't mean others that's (53000-4000= 49000) are useless. Besides, I have shown you this one. I think this is enough! --Haoreima (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Each edition contains a selection of the records from the Guinness World Records database, as well as select new records, with the criteria for inclusion changing from year to year
 * Guinness records no longer recognizes its previous claim, because it only repeats certain records, this is their new standard, which changes every year. They delete the records according to the new criteria Mitrayasna (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not called "deletion" but it's called "the record is not broken yet". --Haoreima (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This claim is not true for five reasons
 * 1 The date 5100 years ago is too high and there is no evidence of horses in India in those days. Sources say that after the Indo-Iranians arrived in India 4000 years ago, horses were introduced to India.Indo-Aryan migrations, Ashva
 * 2 Not all the authoritative encyclopedias of the world have mentioned such a topic
 * 3 Not only in the new editions of the Guinness Book of Records, this article has been removed, but also from the official website.
 * 4 In the ancient books of India such as the Rig Veda and in the important Indian works in Sanskrit language, there is no mention of the polo game.
 * 5 In the Rigveda text, which was written at most 3500 years ago, there are not many names of horses, let alone the game of polo. Mitrayasna (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to WP:LAWYERING! Your reasons are the sidewise claims to stop the inclusion of the fact from being included. Wikipedia relies on the information of standard sources. Suspicions of wikipedians (you or me) isn't applicable. Opinions or comments of Wikipedia editors aren't published in the article. Guinness World Records people are more experienced than you and me. So, by just highlighting both "According to Guinness World Records" & "According to Encyclopedia Britannica", it's enough. If one is included and another is excluded, it's called bias. Advocating to include only one is of course bias. See! Neither you nor I must listen to sidewise wikilawyering support/oppose reasons, just highlighting the sources is enough and bias free. --Haoreima (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Ethan's record in Guinness has been removed and no other reliable source says about it and it is against all the accepted facts. It doesn't have enough credibility to be titled or undercategorized in the way you covered this article on the Wikipedia page. However, we do not agree, we should allow others to comment on this matter and reach a consensus.thank you Mitrayasna (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not here to contradict the Guinness World Records fact. That same fact is highlighted by many renowned newspapers and magazines, including Times of India, Telegraph India, Magzter, Indian Express, The Better India, One India, etc. You can't say all these publications are unreliable sources. --Haoreima (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These sites are all Indian and they have mentioned these contents because of their nationalistic feeling. We only have one very old resource that has been removed in new versions. The edit you made changes the entire article and ignores a fact that is accepted in the scientific community and covered by almost all mainstream scientific encyclopedias. These two claims are not equal. Some contents have few fans in the scientific community and some contents have many fans. It can be said that your edit shows the opposite of this situation. Mitrayasna (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To avoid bias nature, we should include both properly and explicitly highlighting the two's sources. Supporting one and opposing another means bias. We should include both because both are world famous reliable sources. --Haoreima (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be foolish to claim that polo started in India 5100 years ago, when the horse had not yet been introduced by the Aryans. An old source does not equal a fact that the scientific community says otherwise. More importance should be given to the materials that have scientific support.
 * What you have done is marginalize accepted fact in favor of a highly dubious claim. There is no secondary source or explanation as to where they came up with the curious fact that polo was played in India 5100 years ago. Mitrayasna (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a symposium to discuss the authority of Guinness World Records. If you want scholarly activities, you may do it but not here but at outside Wikipedia, at other platforms. And I never said that what Britannica said and what Guinness World Records said are correct or wrong. I am just highlighting what they said and not that their statement is correct or wrong. It's not the duty of wikipedians to act like experts. Highlighting both will avoid bias. Readers will decide which one is correct. Judgement's not our business because this is not a court. --Haoreima (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Haoreima told me about this thread. I'd like to make a contribution.
 * I think H is right that if Edition 4 of a reliable source says something, that information remains good even if Editions 5 and 6 don't say that thing, so long as they don't contradict it either. However, I'm getting the impression that Mitrayasna does not consider the Guiness Book of World Records a convincing source for when and where polo was first played, and would think so even if it were in the most recent edition.  I would agree that a history source or archaeology source would be better, much better.
 * But some of what M is saying looks OR to me. Mitrayasna, your idea that horseback riding and therefore polo would probably take more than one thousand years to get from Ukraine to India sounds plausible to me, but if you cited a source proving it, I missed it.
 * You guys are both putting enough logic and sourcing on the table to provide a reasonable explanation for why you each think what you think. Neither of you has put forth enough proof that any other person has to change their mind, though.
 * I think the thing to do is to find even more sources, in addition to Guiness, that say when polo was first played. And if the evidence is unclear or if there is a debate among scholars, the article should say that.  But, regardless, I think you've both said what you have to say and you're repeating yourselves.  At this point, the other person has either decided not to listen or has listened perfectly but still doesn't agree. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar, don't fail me now!
 * From Iran to All of Asia: The Origin and Diffusion of Polo (2010)
 * The Evolution of Polo (2009)
 * Polo: Past and Present (????)
 * What do you two make of these sources? You both know more about polo than I do.  Maybe "central Asia" is the best answer here.  Instead of rehashing whether Guiness is good enough as a source, let's just check for more.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC on the origin of polo
Please comment on whether shall we add the two different facts mentioned in Guinness World Records as well as Encyclopedia Britannica or add either only one! The origin of polo is said to be "Persia (Iran)" by Encyclopedia Britannica but the Guinness World Records says the origin of polo is "Manipur". The Guinness World Records clarified the record of the origin of polo as Manipur in its 1991 edition, from its former record, Persia mentioned in 1984 edition. In the 1991 edition of Guinness World Records, it states "Polo can be traced to origins in Manipur state c. 3100 B.C., when it was played as Sagol Kangjei. Other claims are of it being of Persian origin, having been played as pulu c. 525 B.C."

The same Guinness World Records' fact is re highlighted in various renowned newspapers and magazines like these - At the same time, Encyclopedia Britannica says "polo was first played in Persia (Iran) at dates given from the 6th century BC to the 1st century AD." I respect both the sources and I want both information to be added in the article citing their sources properly. The problem is one editor challenges the authenticity of Guinness World Records, first saying it's not said by Guinness, and later claiming that even though Guinness mentioned it, the fact is not possible. --Haoreima (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mention both. If sources conflict we just say they do, as simple as that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither. Neither source is even remotely reliable for ancient history in Asia. I suggest using proper scholarly sources such as this article, or books from reputable publishers such as this one (NB I don't know anything about Horace A. Laffaye, such as whether or not he is a well-regarded authority on the sport). Regardless, our article should probably read something like the beginning of his opening chapter, on page 5. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources needed. I don't think the sources do conflict. They all say in varied ways that polo's origins lie with Central Asian equestrian nomads and that it was codified in the Persian empire. It spread, firstly through the Persians; and then went on into more of the world from Manipur −and India more broadly− via the British taking it to their other colonial possessions and beyond.
 * The article in EB Online is confusingly written, saying the game is of "Central Asian origin", "first played" in Iran. Guinness saying it's from Manipur is another distortion of the nuance of its history. As a superficial overview, it is sort of correct: Manipur probably had the most recognisable form, closest to the modern game, and it's where "the West" could be said to have adopted it from. Neither of these sources are of high enough qualitity for the purpose, as Justlettersandnumbers mentions above.
 * My view is that all three aspects are important in polo's genesis, and all should be included. Better sources (academic or respected specialist literature) are needed than either Guinness or the online EB, though. At least some of the sources already in the article are of better quality and cover polo's origins. 175.39.74.37 (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible plagarism
The section on positions is extremely similar to the information on http://www.caminorealpolo.com/All-about-Polo-Players-What-is-Polo-UK-Argentina.html, with only a few words changed ImperialSaponification (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)