Talk:Giovanni Arnolfini

Untitled[edit]

Rick, why do you insist that this be a redirect? The article you redirect to doesn't even contain this information. anthony (see warning) 01:50, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

rewriting history[edit]

The fact (if fact) that Giovanni de Arrigo married in 1447 doesn't mean at all he had not been married before. This seems to me a typical speculation of some modern scholars. They are always rewriting the history in order to get themselves known, probably write some book with great new ideas and earn a little money in the end. They have no other chance, do they? It's just vanity and opportunism and a bunch of semi-truthful speculation pretending to be a detailed scholarly research. Why do you believe them?

It's possible to point out that the subject could have been married previously without the overarching personal attack on all modern scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.178 (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dating issue[edit]

The text says Jacques Paviot made his discovery in 1994, but then dates his article on the subject to 1997. Is the implication that it took 3 years for him to get his findings into print (which is quite plausible, but could be made clearer), or is one of these dates an error? The Arnolfini Portrait article refers to "a chance discovery in 1997". GrindtXX (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the implication is that it took 3 years for him to get his findings into print. I've added a "published" to the painting article. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]