Talk:Polo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

This article really fails to capture the essence of polo. Polo is about the game, and the (actually rather incredible) concept that it is played on horseback.

The horses, referred to as "polo ponies" account for a significant portion of a team's ability. Player's generally own their own horses.

A good polo pony, upon sensing his rider leaning far over to hit the ball will move in under the rider so he can maintain his balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.52.14.82 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2004 (UTC)

---

Pakistan at most times was part of the persian empire at was inhabited be elamo-dravidians; the Aryans who are we know as iranians or persians.

we forget that it was the Persians who domesticized the horse and rode it firs, it seems really logical for the people there to be the first to start a sport with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.152.19 (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Actually the sport of Jai Alai i also played right handed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.173.146 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3100 BC!?

as i understand it, the domesticated horse would not appear in india until perhaps 1600 BC, 1500 years after polo in manipur was supposed to have been played there. this is extremely sketchy.--hamstar 22:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The famous match was between Iranian and Turanians and the latter only became synonymous with Turkmen during the Sassanid empire. THe match was between Iranians and central Asians, scythians probably, and occured before Zoroaster and therefore given the revision of Zoroaster's date was sometimes around 1500 BC. Is this the first ever international sporting game in history — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeusAhrimanus (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Torkaman???

" The first recorded polo match occurred in roughly 600 BC between the Turkomans and Persian, with victory going to the Turkomans. "

1. the main article is from there is no such it, in the article

2. Torkamn in 600 BC????

3. Which source may proof it???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.176.9.201 (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual error

The actual number of players in a polo team are four for outdoor polo and three for arena polo. Therefore, you have either six or eight players on the pitch at any one time plus two mounted umpires.

The pitch dimensions quoted here are not the same as the ones quoted here: http://www.fippolo.com/document/File/Rules_2002_english.pdf Which is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.228.102 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wall-to-wall copy edit

I'm in the process of doing a wall-to-wall copy edit of this article. If anyone has anything they would like to integrate, now's the time to speak up.

I just finished doing the Intro and did a quickie cleaning up of the Origins section. I expect to have the rest of the article polished up in a couple of days. Cheers, --MILH 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Mariano(t/c) 08:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This page looks really messy. Giving arena polo its own section instead of switching back and forth between indoor and outdoor might clear it up. Right now the facts are sort of jumbled together (in outdoor the ball is... in indoor the ball is...) What do you guys think? 128.253.2.15 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Anon

Cleanup

This article needs MAJOR revising, as right now it's just one huge mess. I will get around to it eventually but right now I'm just too busy. --ILoveFuturama 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself twice, first saying that the number one is the hardest player, then saying three is the best player. then as you go on, its says that player one is usually the least experienced. ???142.46.7.18 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself, although this particular point is inaccurate. It is not the number 1, but the number 2 that is the hardest position on the field to play because they are given the task of neutralizing the number 3 (who is often the best player on the field, although not always. Sometimes this can be the number 2) (TJC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.173.142 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Finance

I'd like to see some information on how the game is financed and how well players are paid. I live near to polo fields and I see how expensive it must be to participate in or run a team. E.g. Horses, sorry ponies, are flown in from Argentina for competitions. Very few games charge spectators to watch yet the local facilities (Sotogrande, Spain) are incredible. EdX20 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Rosenthal

Phillip Rosenthal (block log) has been permanently blocked as a sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies (block log · checkuser^confirmed), who has a history of

• POV-pushing
• citing unreliable sources
• misrepresenting his sources

The Arbitration Committee has found that Freedom skies has "repeatedly engaged in edit-warring" and placed him on revert parole. When examining Freedom skies' editing, be mindful of the following:

• Can whatever source Freedom skies cites be considered reliable and up to date?
• Do his edits accurately reflect the content of the sources cited?
• Do his edits reflect "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community"?
• If not, do his edits give minority views undue weight?

JFD 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

CAIS links are not allowed here

A few days ago, I was having trouble reverting a piece of particularly severe vandalism to this article because the polo history link was blacklisted. I didn't understand why, but according to this ANI discussion, CAIS is apparently guilty of wanton copyright infringement and plagarism. Per WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted works, even linking to sites that violate copyright could expose the Foundation to litigation. I've therefore removed all links to CAIS. My apologies, but there is no gray area in this matter. Blueboy96 22:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This also required refactoring a talk page comment. Normally, this is bad practice, but WP:COPY takes precedence even in talk pages.Blueboy96 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rules

It'd be nice to have a section on the actual rules of Polo, how the teams interact, what penalties can be called for and how they work etc.

It would be nice to have a section on rules about polo.

The rules are VERY complex and the USPA rulebook is indeed very think, it would be difficult to summarizem it concisely. I can try as along as this isn't going to be subject to the merciless editing and constant deletions and reversions that seem typical here. In the meantime, here is a good overview of the rules:

Perhaps the people from that site can be invited to contribute 69.158.100.5 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I came to the Polo page to find out what the rules were (as I'm going to watch a game later today) - so far all I know is that players score goals - and that there can be penalties. And if the ball goes out the other team get a free knock in. Someone who knows the game should please give a brief idea of what the penalties might be - just a rough guide to explain if there are penalties for offside, obstruction, dangerous play, high stick, etc, is it meant to be non contact sport or are you allowed to push against other players? EdwardLane (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I read that page some while back, but the link above is now broken, I just watched a match on eurosport and so there are a few particular rules I'd like to see explained in the article.

• penalties - some of the penalties looked to have all the players out of the area between the goal, and others seemed to have lots of horses between the player and the goal.
• goals - the goals look to be two posts on the floor and seem to have no crossbar, so any ball going through at any height looked to be scored (is that correct)
• riding off - had to be done from 'in front of the saddle' or it's a foul (is that right?)
• the referee can choose to 'play advantage' but given that almost any foul looked to give a penalty they seemed to blow really quickly, and basically don't play advantage.
• shooting wide of the goal, seemed to give a 'knock in' to defense
• defender knocking the ball back over their own goal scores an own goal
• defender knocking the ball back behind the goal 'the commentator said something like a "oh that'll be a clear 60", but the second commentator said "no, it came of someone's legs so it will be a knock in". did I hear that right - and is a "clear 60" a type of penalty (with everyone cleared out the way?) or did I mishear that.
• besides crossing 'too close' in front of someone who is riding the line of the ball, and dangerous hooking are there any other fouls?

Can anyone flesh that list above out with better details, and find a source to cite, and then add them to the article?EdwardLane (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are Spencer Tracey & Tommy Lee Jones Being Deleted From the List of Polo Players?

I notice that contributions indicating that Spencer Tracey played polo have all been reversed. I don't understand why. These are just a few references that indicate that he did indeed play polo. These are just a few references. There are others. I would think that before something is deleted, a simple google search should be conducted.

Here are the sources re: Tommy Lee Jones: 69.158.100.5 05:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chukka or chukker?

It's written as both in the article, and since I know bugger-all about polo I figured I'd point this out.--218.166.43.140 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chukker: A period of play. Known as a chukka in England and in India. ... Polo play is governed by rules set forth in the “Blue Book" of the USPA,, the governing body for the sport of polo. (US Polo Association)

If we are talking about the outdoor game, chukkas are 7 minutes long.

"A polo game is divided into four to six periods, called chukkers. The word “chukker” sometimes spelled “chukka” is derived from the Sanskrit word referring the turn of a wheel, which was the way chukkers were once timed. In the indoor game, the length of the 4 chukkas is longer, 7 minutes and 30 seconds. 69.158.110.6 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of External Link To Polo.TV

In response (particularly) to IrishGuy. I feel that this is a highly relevant external link to include on the page, as this site has an extensive libaray of video clips showing high-goal polo being played around the world, & featuring the most important tournaments. This would, of course, be of interest to anyone interested in learning more about the sport of polo - I suggest you read the article first, to see that the featured video content is relevant - you will find out that these are the amongst the most notable tournaments played worldwide (British Open, US Open, Spanish Open etc etc). Secondly compare this external link with other ones on the article - again, at the very least, this link is as relevant, however I would suggest it is more relevant than most of the others on the polo article page. Why not investigate some of these ones further (for spam, COI, notability etc), rather than just delete my entry, simply because it was written by myself. Let's discuss here further before you remove again. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by First5wins (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you find it to be relevant...you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. Stop spamming. IrishGuy ^talk 14:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish Guy - what is important here is that you are assuming a conflict of interest (and that appears to be your main prerogative, not the greater relevance/benefit of the Polo article, but instead you could be accused of waging a perosnal vendetta against any entry I've made). Simply accusing me of COI (unfounded, I hasten to add) is not enough. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not connected with Blue Tuna but am very familiar very with their polo television series (I'm a polo player and watch their programmes extensively and have researched them, a fan therefore - is that permissable?), and believe it is both relevant & notable that 1/ a page exists for them Blue Tuna on wiki & 2/ the connection between polo & blue tuna is a valid one. As I have suggested to you previously, actually spend some time and read through the polo article and edit it (beleive me, there is an awful lot lacking from this article and much more significant edits required than merely undoing what I have written). But let's keep talking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by First5wins (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the Blue Tuna article. You wrote it. You have done nothing but promote Blue Tuna with each of your edits. Again, Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. IrishGuy ^talk 15:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Irish Guy - you are removing information that have no connection to blue tuna on this page - eg, my last tinclusion of Kenny Jones & Mike Rutherford, as examples of notable polo players. I've now re-included them with appropiate references. Please, do some research before you edit things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by First5wins (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you were spamming again. Just as you did here with yet another Blue Tuna link. IrishGuy ^talk 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not affiliated with blue tuna in any way, but I agree that polo.tv is an extremely useful website, particularly for novices, as it allows beginning players to see high-goal polo to which they wouldn't ordinarily have access. I frequently view their video clips for inspiration and education. I don't care to make any judgement on the COI issue, but polo.tv is, in my opinion at least, one of the more valuable polo websites out there. Pologringo (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Asia section tense

Something is wrong in the Southeast Asia section, but I don't have time to mess with it. I threw up a "clean up tense" template. --130.127.53.144 (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of work on the section. Someone the Person (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable players

I removed a bunch of celebrities who "happened to play polo", as they can't be considered notable polo players per se. About the notability of those remaining, I guess 10-handicapped such as Cambiaso are a must here. For the rest, I'm not that sure. Mariano(t/c) 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This works for me. I've had enough trouble just keeping all of the red links off the list (see the above section here), I just didn't feel like fighting with people who wanted to keep all the princes who happened to play polo on the list. More power to you, and if you wouldn't mind, please keep the article watchlisted to help make sure the list stays pruned down. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in my watchlist, I just happened to be in a wiki-sabbatical. Take care, Mariano(t/c) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

some indians on wikipedia are changing everything without any reason. it is stated that "Polo was first played in India around 6 century B.C. and from there it was picked up by people of Persia (modern day Iran).. " can someone give a source for this claim please???

We used to think that Polo came from Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.24.182 (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence of History Section. My ref. is that of Britanica. If Indians are going to change it again, please provide reference. My ref. for the Fact that game was In persia before being in India is 1. Britanica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/468128/polo 2. Polo History UK: http://www.polo.co.uk/polo_history.htm

So, Please do not change without giving sources.

The whole history section is a big huffhuff. Anyone seeing the strangeness in ths paragraph for example? Let me give you some hint by bolding...

"In 1862 the first polo club, Calcutta Polo Club, was established by two British soldiers, Captain Robert Stewart and Major General Joe Shearer.[12] Later they spread the game to their peers in England. The British are credited with spreading polo worldwide in the late 19th century and the early 20th century. Military officers imported the game to Britain in the 1860s. The establishment of polo clubs throughout England and western Europe followed after the formal codification of rules.[11] The 10th Hussars at Aldershot, Hants, introduced polo to England in 1834."

Note this last year, which is mentioned on another place in the article as the year when the first polo club was founded, in Silchar, and also Calcutta (as mentioned below). --Luffarfarfar (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Red Linked Notable Polo Players

There is getting to be quite a list of "notable" polo players on the main page, most of which are red linked. The ones with blue links can stay, as they're obviously notable enough to have an article about them, but the ones with red links I'm moving here. If any of these people eventually have articles written about them, they can be moved back to the main page.

• Cecil Smith
• Queen Jessica Fonseca
• Rube Williams
• Alejandro Diaz Alberdi
• Craig Beasley
• Gonzalo Pieres
• Alberto Pedro Heguy, Sr.
• Bautista Heguy
• Horacio A. Heguy
• Ignacio "Nachi" Heguy
• Ignacio Heguy
• Eduardo Novillo Astrada
• Ignacio Novillo Astrada
• Miguel Novillo Astrada
• Javier Novillo Astrada
• Juan Pablo Novillo Astrada
• Mike Azzaro
• Memo Gracida
• Martin Prieto Gracida
• Carlos Prieto Gracida
• Sue Sally Hale
• Sunny Hale
• Juan Carlos Harriot
• Oliver Portis
• Max Stevens (Baller)
• Victor-Mansour Semeika
• Malcolm Borwick
• Mister Whitey
• Jeff Whitey
• Mariano Aguerre
• Bobby Beveridge
• Owen Rinehart
• Ignacio Guaia
• Harley Stimmel
• Bartolome Castagnola
• Nader Gandur Castagnola
• Estanislao Jalil Castagnola
• Juan Carlos Castagnola
• Gabriel Castagnola
• Facundo Pieres
• Gonzalo Pieres
• Gonzalo Pieres (h)
• Tomas Pieres
• Andrew Martin McNeil
• Milo Fernandez Araujo
• Mark Tomlinson
• Emma Tomlinson
• Tommy Biddle
• Lucinda Verhees

Shows you know NOTHING about polo. How you can remove famous players like these is beyond me? Even earlier on the same page Wikipedia.org "polo page" it says:

"Argentina dominates the professional sport and is today the source of most of the world's 10-goal (i.e., top-rated) players. In Argentina, polo players are known as "polistas." In the world of polo, Argentina's Heguy family, Pieres family, or Castagnola family, are to polo what the Barrymore family is to acting or the Khan family to squash. The Campeonato Argentino Abierto de Polo tournament—over 100 years old—remains the most important polo competition in the world."

Yet you remove the members of that family who are famous.

Just because no one has gotten around to writing an article about them yet does not mean they are not notable:

• Memo Gracida - he does have an article in Britanica.com
• Martin Prieto Gracida
• Carlos Prieto Gracida
• Ignacio "Nachi" Heguy
• Ignacio Heguy
• Alberto Pedro Heguy, Sr.
• Bautista Heguy
• Horacio A. Heguy

I am putting them back. Here are some links that show that some of these players are well known enough to be covered in MAJOR USA newspapers. I will add more in a second: ,

Wikipedia even lists the championships that many of these players won: Campeonato Argentino Abierto de Polo

FYI, here is a list of players who have won outstanding polo player of the year by the US Polo Association (USPA). Are you going to tell me that isn't notable enough for you?

Previous winners: 2004 Carlos Gracida 2003 Francisco “Paco” de Narvaez 2002 Adam Snow 1999 Hector Galindo/ Memo Gracida 1998 Adam Snow 1997 Memo Gracida 1996 Memo Gracida 1995 Carlos Gracida 1994 Mike Azzaro 1993 Carlos Gracida 1992 Owen Rinehart 1991 Memo Gracida 1990 Memo Gracida 1989 Carlos Gracida 1988 Gonzalo Pieres 1987 Owen Rinehart 1986 Carlos Gracida

These players are USPA Polo Hall of Fame Inductees. How can you say they are not notable?

Elected February 7, 1997 Guillermo "Memo" Gracida, Jr. - He is known as Memo Gracida in polo circles and if you knew anything about polo you would know that

Elected February 15, 2008 Gonzalo Pieres

How you can say that members of the British royal family aren't KNOWN is also beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.110.6 (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Playing surface

Is Polo always played on grass? My housemate plays polo and I was shocked to find out that he didn't know what a divot was, apparently he plays on wood chippings, and looked at me oddly when I implied that that wasn't normal, but he didn't really elaborate much. There's no mention of it on here, anyone know anything about it? Will Bradshaw (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The variant called "cowboy polo" is often played inside a standard dirt arena. However, I cannot say for certain about traditional field polo, as I know relatively little about the sport, but given the dimensions of an official playing field, I find it difficult to imagine the cost of maintaining any other surface but simple turf grass. I suppose in places where turf is hard to maintain there may be alternative surfaces, but I guess you may have to ask him to elaborate, eh? Montanabw^(talk) 04:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a playing surface that would not suffer from divots but that would also allow the horse's hooves to gain purchase. Any surface suitable for a horse to gallop without slipping and sliding would by necessity divot in a rollback or hard check situation. I think it's much more likely your housemate wasn't familiar with the actual word, "divot", than it is that he hasn't observed them while playing. I don't know about woodchips, but I do know many arenas use a combination of things like coconut husks and sand to provide a good playing surface that drains well and minimizes divoting. It certainly wouldn't eliminate them though. Pologringo (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Automobile Polo

I don't know if anybody has staged a serious game, but there was once a TV ad (Isuzu, I think), featuring a game of polo played with SUVs. Should that be added to the variants? JDS2005 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

championship

took out the single mention of brazil winning and runnerup details. Blatant nationalism. Chile is current champion anyway, and details about the championship can be found elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.247.135 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

World Polo Championship

It's important to mention that is held without the presence of the best professional players. --Lucio Garcia 12:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs)

Lucio, thanks for your additions to the article. However, I have reverted them again, as this comment was unsourced, and was basically insulting the competition. If you have reliable sources that assert that this competition is held without the best polo players being present, please feel free to add them. However, in the absence of reliable sources, you cannot add assertions like this. I realize this article is in bad shape and could benefit from some serious TLC, but adding more unsourced information will not help matters. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not insulting the competition. This competition, far from being the best or the strongest competition, is for teams with handicap 14 or less. Argentina, for example, has and had enough pro players at least to complete 2 entire teams of handicap 40. They can't participate in this competition. Look in the official page of the event, it's says about handicap. No source needed, if you know just a little about polo. For an argentine, it's almost an insult that mention this championship as the "World Championship". But if you want, go to that site or check the wikipedia article of that event. --Lucio Garcia 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

However, it is, according to the WP page, the "premier international polo competition. The event is organised by the sport's governing body, the Federation of International Polo." This is not just focusing on Argentine polo, it is focused worldwide, so it is no insult to Argentine polo. Also, from what I've read about polo handicapping, a 10-14 goal handicap is a very high handicap, and so many of the world's best players would be playing in this championship. Please provide sources that say a 10-14 handicap is limiting the world best players from playing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I believe from the beggining, you don't know nothing about polo except what you "read". Did you read what I wrote? 40 in handicap vs. 14??? Very high handicap compared to what???? What are you talking about? The event is held under that handicap because if not, Argentina win every tournament! I can't explain what handicap is. It obvious that this info is not in the "governing body, the Federation of International Polo" . They just can put this, cause everybody who loves polo know it!. Just keep with this article, I will not waste more time. Sorry for being rude.--Lucio Garcia 21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs)

Lucio, what Dana is saying is that you need to FOOTNOTE. Please read WP:CITE to see what she is trying to say. We have to cite to verifiable sources. This is an encyclopedia, that's all. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Look spanish wiki version of the articles and this 2 links too: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC) ,

--Lucio Garcia 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Better Players:

Bigger events:

Latest BIG event on polo: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The area of playing field

The playing field is 300 yards long by 160 yards wide, the approximate area of nine American football fields?

since 300 yards = 274 m, and 160 yards = 146 m. so the square is = 40.004 m2

American football is played on a field 360 by 160 feet (109.7 m × 48.8 m) is = 5390 m2

so the polo field is only about 7,5 times of american football field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.88.226 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it's REALLY "approximate!" LOL! Feel free to fix! Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Argentina

Hey guys should't be a section about the contemporary sports or at least a mention on the total dominance of the sports by Argentina...

The (by far) most important tournaments are held in Argentina, Of the top 40 players in the world 99% are argentinians

etc etc... 190.246.175.203 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Check this link where you can see that the best tournaments are held in Argentina. http://www.worldpolotour.com/tournaments.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.10.253 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The major Polo Torunaments acording to World Polo Tour (source http://www.worldpolotour.com/tournaments.htm ):

1) Campeonato Abierto Argentino de Polo 2) Campeonato Abierto de Hurlingham 3) Campeonato Abierto de Tortugas Country Club

All of them are held in Argentina and the teams require a minimum of 28 goals to participate. Sources: http://argentinapololounge.com/el-abierto-argentino-de-polo/?lang=es http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo_(deporte) http://argentinapololounge.com/el-abierto-argentino-de-polo/?lang=es http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campeonato_Abierto_de_Hurlingham

Continuing the list: 4) Queens Cup Held in the UK (22 goals maximum per team) Source: http://www.polohorse.info/polo-news/british-queen-cup.html

5)USPA Gold Cup Held in the US (26 goals maximum per team)

6)Cámara de Diputados Cup Held in Argentina (24 to 28 goals) http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=116485

It is clear that the best tournaments are in Argentina. The only tournaments in the world that require a minimum of 28 goals to participate are in argentina. Something intresting to say aswell is that there has been an 80 goals official match played between Ellerstina and La Dolfina played recently in the Abierto de Hurlingham. Source: http://www.canchallena.com/1190460 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.35.58 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We are talking in the same language that you. THANKS! --Lucio Garcia 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucio Garcia (talk • contribs)

First club

"The first polo club was established in the town of Silchar in Assam, India, in 1834." But a few paragraphs alter, the article says that the first club was founded in the same year in Calcutta. This needs to be cleared up.Kdammers (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also the oldest field and origin of the sport is not at all clear. In the beginning it says Persia (Iran) is the founding nation through training cavalry, but later on Manipur is mentioned as the region with the oldest polo grounds. Anyone who knows anything about this or knows how to put up a wiki-marker (the one that says it needs to be cleaned up, and the one that warn about the unreliabilitiy) on the article header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luffarfarfar (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mallet use

ISTR that there is a rule where when making a hit towards the rear, a polo rider may not raise the head of the mallet above the head of the horse. That's to prevent the mallet striking and injuring the horse, especially to prevent eye injuries. Bizzybody (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Origin

"polo was at first a training game for cavalry units, usually the king's guard or other elite troops." In "The Seventy Great Inventions of the Ancient World by Brian M. Fagan", it was described that it originated from the hunt: the wooden hammers come from the clubs used during hunting. 91.182.251.170 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Rules

Reading in the article, I was looking for some kind of rule section with information on what players can do (like with what can they touch the ball) and can't do, but the closest thing I got was the game section, without much detailed information on polo rules at all. Kolrok (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the beginning of the article read "The sport of kings" instead of "The king of sports"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.136.162 (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced

It kills me to remove some of the unref'd sections......as most of them are written pretty well......but they are unreferenced. --Bddmagic (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

a bunch of stuff got chopped out here (diff) by the last edit but both versions contain some merit.

Looks like most of it is unsourced in both cases. The article should probably get a big rewrite - cutting all the unsourced stuff and dumping it on the talk page or similar - so that it doesn't need to be written out again, and then if someone can find sources then it's easier to add it back in with sources. I've not got time at the moment but I might come back and be rather bold in little while. EdwardLane (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Chuckers

In section "Polo Ponies", the citation to "glossary" (#29) < "Glossary". Fippolo.com. Retrieved 7 February 2012. >, does not seem to exist... 71.139.166.86 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

County Polo

The last paragraph in the County Polo section ("County Polo has had a resurgence...) is so poorly written and punctuated as to be impossible to make sense of.

Section on polo in the United States could also stand rewriting for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.134.99 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

And why is that section a subsection of The field ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Polo Magazine

The earliest of all the polo magazines ever published is unknown as reports and references can not be verified. However it appears over the last 200 years there has been a plethora of newsletters and magazine's come and go about the sport but most only lasting a year or two. Titles such as Club Polo, India circa 1892, The Sportsman USA 1927, Polo South West Polo USA circa 1938., Play Polo, USA circa 1952 name only a few. The oldest current magazine on the sport in circulation today is singularly called 'POLO' and according to its own figures hit its first million print run readership circulation in 1998. Referencing an email received by the author 26th August 2014 from the editorial department of the glossy quarterly POLO Magazine, its trademark ownership can be verified back to 1983. The Editorial team at POLO Magazine kindly pointed me to further research '. . . although we are POLO Magazine and have been in continuous publication under the POLO Masthead, you may find interest in the well respected Polo Players Editon Journal edited by Amy Shinitzki well before our POLO Magazine trademark.' I found the current journal Polo Players Editon although not a glossy magazine format more a journal newsletter style it can indeed be verified to have been started in 1974 called Polo News and then in 2001 changed its name to its current title Polo Players Edition. There are conflicting reports whether or not Ms Shinitzki was the founding editor as a newsletter was produced by the United States Polo Association reportedly for 14 issues before Ms Shinitzki took the reins and changed it into a periodical newsletter. However it is clear Polo Players Edition is the oldest current periodical about the sport and POLO Magazine is the oldest and only magazine called POLO in current circulation. ~~Henry Roebuck~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.177.118 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 23 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nligas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary sport

"Polo is unique among team sports in that amateur players, often the team patrons, routinely hire and play alongside the sport's top professionals."

This is not unique. This is also how yacht racing works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.177.82 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Leather Balls and 3,000-Year-Old Pants

3 leather balls were found in different graves in Yanghai and two were marked with red crosses. The Yanghai Tombs are in the arid Turpan basin, and thousands of graves remain unexcavated. These were AMS radiocarbon dated to the time interval between 1189 and 911 BCE (95% probability), and thus predate other currently known antique balls and images of ball games in Eurasia by several centuries. I think this discovery makes us rethink polo origin. Jit.cuet (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

UNESCO

Hi all people. The polo(chogan چوگان) called Iran in UNESCO was registered worldwide. Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey - UNESCO specifically stated 'chovgan', not 'polo'. Polo is the name of the variation of the game played in the western world and it seems to have its immediate origins from the variation played in Manipur. Many variations of this horse-riding game have been played throughout time by different countries. Chovgan already has its own Wikipedia article which you can find here. I would encourage you to add your information on Iran on that page, as swamping this article with displaced references to Iran makes it a poor quality article. 86.30.66.111 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

References

The Chogan or Polo called Iran in UNESCO was registered worldwide

This essay is based on the base of the Achaemenids - Iran or Persia, and is from the earliest speech of this article. Chogan is Origin name for polo in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی (talk • contribs) 13:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی The etymology of the word polo does not derive from chogan but if you can provide proof I am happy to change it.

In any case, I think the article as it is now is a compromise and I think we can agree that it’s much more objective than before? The current article shows that the first recorded tournament was in Persia - Iran, with its ultimate origins further north. This is in line with the sources provided.

If you disagree with the information, please discuss it with me here before reverting the article. Thanks. Tomas990 (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC) You can easily change the article base and bully yourself. This article has been the same for many years. Polo is solely owned by Iran or Persia. The result of the magnificent ancient culture and civilization Persia. Do you read resources and references? How did this article change overnight? Where have you been to this before? If you are saddened by the Universal Polo Register in Iran, protest at UNESCO in the criticism section or protest with Twitter. Thankful. Tomas990 (talk)میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You have reverted my edits 5 times without providing a counter ref that I could check. You are taking this too personally and it’s affecting the objectivity of the article. I read the original article which stated in very certain terms that Iran invented polo, but on reading the citations in support of this claim, it appeared that this was not the case. We need to put what the sources say. Two of the additional sources I provided are published books on the history of Asian sport, and polo in particular, and they do seem like interesting and reliable sources to include in the origins section. You did not explain why you removed these sources for the 3rd(?) time. Unfair that the progress of this article is being blocked because of a petty desire to monopolise a sport. Tomas990 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of citations

@Ssaco: 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)

@86.30.66.111:, 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)

References

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:

• 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

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)

First played polo

{{Help me}}

Moved from User talk:Mitrayasna

 – For wider discussion

• See also: "Origins" section above for earlier post and related earlier discussion at use of citations

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.

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

References

Mitrayasna, 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 Wikipedia: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.

--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)

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.

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)