Talk:Polo

RFC on the origin of polo

User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil 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 Template:Quote The same Guinness World Records' fact is re highlighted in various renowned newspapers and magazines like these - At the same time, Encyclopedia Britannica says Template:Quote 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)

Suck you mother

Sym 2605:59C0:1292:6610:FCCB:BFB5:ACEB:3BE4 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Canada's Response to Global Environmental Wicked Problems

— Assignment last updated by Greatkingjeff (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Inconsistent information across pages

Hi I was reading a separate page - 31st century BC and noticed inconsistency. The first event described is Polo, it says it was first played in 3100 BC in India and links to the polo article.

On the polo article, it says that it originated from Iran, and origins dating to 600 BC, about 2000 years later. It does not mention India in the history from what I saw.

Could someone please correct this? 31.120.88.36 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)