Talk:Hugues de Payens

Comment

Hughes de Payens was pupil of Schlomo ben Yitzchak. A link between Knights Templar, Gnosticism, Kabbalah and Baphomet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:08, September 17, 2005 (talk • contribs) 84.61.10.86

According to a second version, Hughes de Payens was born in the city of Forenza in Basilicata, (ancient Lucania), Italy and bore his father's surname, "Paganos",or "Pagan" who was a norman ruler and his wife Emma. That changes perspective of the whole genesis of the "Pauperes Commilitiones Christi Templique Salomonici", or Knights Templar Order, and moves it to middle ages Italy, to a region that was enriched by different cultural influences up to that period,(Pagan,Greek,Lungobardian and Normanic cultures)... After founding the order, they joined the Crusades lead by French royalty, and departed to the Holy Land. December 11th, 2008, Roxane Larocca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.4.55.32 (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude this is rediculous and you cite no sources. Edgemaniac (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming

I reverted an edit to the page that tried to change the name from "Hugues" to "Hughes". This is an occasional misspelling. The correct name is either the French spelling, "Hugues de Payens", or the English version, "Hugh of Payens". The "Hughes" spelling is just a confused version of the two. Currently the article title is at Hugues de Payens because I feel that's the most commonly-seen version of the name, but if anyone really wants to move the page to Hugh of Payens, we can definitely talk about it. --Elonka 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wife of Hugues de Payen

Added "In Popular Culture" section to insert the claim that Hugues de Payen married Catherine St Clair, since this is really only part of the recent romantic histories of Rosslyn Chapel. The historical record states that his wife was really Elizabeth de Chappes, and this is what is found on the French Wikipedia version of the article: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugues_de_Payns Wfgh66 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

external links

Hello,

I would like to know why are you desagree, for a external links~ about Hugues de Payns Museum. When I go in the external links about museum (in the article), the links give "bad" informations (open/close of museum....).

In the description, when can see in the notes, the book of M. Thierry Leroy,and the origine of existence of museum is T. Leroy and friends of him. the "webmestre" of external links I purpose, is T. Leroy

Sorry, but you can see, I'm not english....that's why my english isn't good....

Thanks.

Cordially —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.144.210 (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Someone can add this book : Hugues de Payns, la naissance des Templier, de PF Thierry Leroy, ThebookEdition, March 2011,

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.34.111.166 (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Merged from Talk:Ugo de' Pagani

Merge proposed

If I've understood correctly, this is the same fellow as Hugues de Payens: the dispute is over his place of birth. It appears the Italian wiki briefly had both articles but has merged them under the French name, it:Hugues de Payns. There is much discussion on the Italian talk page, which I admit I haven't yet read.

The Catalan wiki describes him as (of course) Catalan. See ca:Hug de Pinós. That's not much help, except to suggest that no one has the faintest idea where he came from. Andrew Dalby 13:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Merge as proposer. Andrew Dalby 14:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Merge certainly. He sounds Scottish to me! The French name was no doubt used in Outremer. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Merge, although we could certainly mention the uncertainty about his birthplace. (I see no reason to doubt that he was French, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Merge: Same guy. Scolaire (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Merge: I note that while the discussion on it:Hugues de Payns is about moving it to the title of this one, the main connection between that discussion and it:Ugo de' Pagani seems to be that the main proponent of moving the article was apparently the author of the one reference given in (the pre-merger version of) it:Ugo de' Pagani. While both the Italian and the Catalan claims to Hugues de Payens may be worth mentioning (neither, I think, is outright impossible), both do look fringe and should probably be indicated as such. PWilkinson (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all. Since there was no objection I have made the merge. I could save an external link from the page "Ugo de'Pagani", and I retrieved a book citation from that link. I would have loved to save something more, because the existing Hugues de Payens is weak, to say the least, but I honestly couldn't. It was completely unsourced. All the material about the First Crusade and the founding of the Order at that time was fiction. There is no evidence known to me, or cited on Wikipedia, that Hugues/Ugo was in Palestine at that period. Andrew Dalby 13:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there is one after all. The chronicler Simon de St. Bertin (don't look for him on Wikipedia, Marco made him a redirect to Ugo de' Pagani!) really does seem to say the order was founded just after the First Crusade. He doesn't name Hugues/Ugo, but his work is not fiction and I can add it to the article. Andrew Dalby 13:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Marco Antonio Sorrentino

Dear friends, I read your thesis... I am Italian, but I swear this does not influence my research. The data about the Italian origin of Ugo de' Pagani are many, but I have not had time to translate all my research, you can find it in Italian on Ugo de' Pagani.
In Italy the topic Ugo de' Pagani has become a taboo, because despite historians and heraldists of every age and nationality have always supported his Italian origin, from 1800 on, some novelists have begun to support his French origin.
Thanks.
- Major Marco Antonio Sorrentino

I can't think of any English or French historians who have ever said he was Italian. "Novelists" have nothing to do with it, because we wouldn't use novelists as a source on Wikipedia. The evidence for his French origin is a bit circumstantial - the other original Templars were French, the original patrons of the Templars were French, the count of Champagne especially - presumably he supported the order because Hugh de Payens was also from Champagne - but also Bernard of Clairvaux, Fulk of Anjou, etc. I will read your research when I have a moment, but let's not pretend there is any nationalist bias here. It just makes more historical sense if Hugh was from Champagne. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely late here, but if you're looking for English or French historians who said he was Italian, check Frans Mennens (1623), Blaise François de Pagan (1645), Pierre Dupuy (1654), Johann Jacob Hofmann (1698), Baedeker's Italy: handbook for travellers. Part 3 (1869) and the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (Volume 11) published by Robert Appleton Company in 1911. Their works are listed in the article. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, Marco, now that I've read your Italian article, I still don't see why you think he was Italian. In fact this "controversy" seems to exist only in your article and nowhere else. I do not see any modern secondary sources that say he was Italian (or at least, no academic ones that would be acceptable for Wikipedia). Is this your own original research? If so, I would suggest publishing it in an outside source. Otherwise it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Only there??? Read: http://www.facebook.com/Hugo.de.Paganis http://hugodepaganis.blogspot.com/ http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1JN_2XJklenCBzacfbEzDjW_w2dSgKytEvE0nLSCC_lI http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Mario_Moiraghi/Sandbox http://www.tonyassante.com/renzoallegri/templari/indice.htm http://www.osmtj.com/date.htm http://www.templars.it/ugodepaganiL.html http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/templar.htm http://www.storiainrete.com/619/medio-evo/i-templari-sono-%C2%ABmade-in-italy%C2%BB%E2%80%A6-altro-che-francesi/ http://www.templarisanbernardo.org/A%20Ferrara%20la%20tomba%20di%20Uo%20dei%20Pagani%20primo%20magister%20templare.htm http://forum.nexusedizioni.it/litaliano_che_fondo_i_templari-t4143.0.html http://apocalisselaica.net/varie/miti-misteri-e-poteri-occulti/l-italiano-che-fondo-i-templari http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59414627202&v=info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Antonio Sorrentino (talk • contribs) 14:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of blogs and Facebook pages are not suitable sources. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, this isn't relevant to the merge question. He is one man, therefore he should have one Wikipedia biography. If there are eventually some reliable sources saying that he was born in Italy (or in Catalonia), this issue of his place of birth should form part of his one biography page. I mention this here, Marco, because you haven't yet commented on the merge proposal. Andrew Dalby 09:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Some French cheats

The following paragraph is unencyclopedic. I have moved it to here. Something similar can be put back in the article if (1) it uses encyclopedic language ("cheats" is out, for starters), (2) it can by reliably sourced, and (3) it goes into the article proper, not the lead.

Under the gallicised version of his name, Hugues de Payens, recently some French cheats adopted him as their fellow countryman, saying that he was born in Payns, in the Champagne region, but:

• The gallicised name don't correspond with the original versions of his name (Paganis, Pagani, Pagan).
• Payens neither correspond with Payns.
• Payns didn't exist in the Middle Age.
• They chose the Champagne region only because its name resemble to the Campania region.
• Italian historians showed many times that he was born in Nocera de' Pagani, in Italy.

Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have found one source in English (I don't speak Italian) that says Hugo was born in Nocera. It is the 1869 Baedeker. --Scolaire (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a very useful find. It's not a reliable source for the history (it's too old, and not a history book anyway) but it is a highly reliable source for the fact that this view has existed.

Since there has been no objection to the merge, I am inclined to go ahead and do it. It would be good to add more references to historians who have taken the non-standard view (see the claim above, Italian historians showed many times ..., for which we don't yet have references) because I don't think anyone's claiming that his place of birth is certain. On the other hand, the claim above that Payns didn't exist in the Middle Age seems false; I understand (haven't re-checked this right now) that there are even the ruins of a Templar commandery there. [Yes, see fr:Commanderie de Payns.] Andrew Dalby 09:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The only other authoritative source for the claim that I can find is the equally old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Nocera dei Pagani. A modern book which makes the claim is Mario Moiraghi's L'italiano che fondò i templari. From the Amazon page (even Italian Amazon) I would guess it doesn't have much of a following, but it's probably worth mentioning. A Google translate of this page will give you an idea of what he says.

I agree that the articles can and should be merged right away. Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And, the Commandery of Payns has been founded a lot of years after Ugo de' Pagani. I think that the whole article is very trustworthy... The 99% of possibilities say that he was Italian, from Nocera de' Pagani. TheRibbon (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, the comment above, signed "TheRibbon", was added by Marco Antonio Sorrentino (see diff). Andrew Dalby 15:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Merge

I am currently adding material about alternative views of Hugues de Payens' origin. This results from the merge of the page "Ugo de'Pagani", which existed to highlight an Italian claim to him. Andrew Dalby 13:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've finished for now. There's plenty of room for improvement though! References need checking and more useful material will certainly turn up. Andrew Dalby 14:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well.. the new article is very good! If you need more infos about Ugo de' Pagani, visit the blog Ugo de' Pagani, I just completed it. I added the Google Translator widget, I hope you'll can understand. MAS (talk)

Sources

I see that this article has not improved since 2012. In fact it may now be worse. Thanks to a question about Hugh (and this article) on AskHistorians on Reddit, I've taken a look at the sources cited here:

Name section

• Guarini (1621), p. 224 - says nothing about his origins
• Baedeker (1869) and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) do say he was from Nocera, but with no supporting evidence, as far as I can tell

I cannot see Rotundo (1983) or Moiraghi (2005).

Origin and early life section

Many of the sources do not support his Italian origin at all:

• Sigonio (1574), p. 427 - this says nothing about his origins
• Pantaleon (1581), p. 23 - says nothing about his origins
• Mazzella (1588) - this book does not mention Hugh or the Templars at all
• Guarini (1621), p. 224 - same as above, says nothing about his origins
• Mennens (1623), p. 34 - says nothing about his origins (but implies he was from France)
• de Pagan (1645) - I do not see anything in this book about Hugh the Templar
• Hofmann (1698), p. 547 - nothing about his origins (and the other two cited pages are irrelevant)

Some sources do say he was from Nocera:

• Campanile (1610), p. 253
• Amico (1636), p. 105
• Gaetani (1638), p. 81
• Dupuy (1654), p. 2 (in the 1751 edition)
• Giustiniani (1692), p. 307
• Baedeker (1869)
• Catholic Encyclopedia (1911)

But none of them cite any evidence for this.

Moiraghi and/or Giaccobo (2010) seem to suggest a conspiracy theory in which sources about Hugh's life were destroyed after the trial in the 14th century. It seems more likely that the sources just never existed in the first place.

There is supposedly a letter written by Hugh in 1103. I can see an Italian version of this in various books and websites. Apparently Moiraghi has a Latin version? If so, I can’t see it. I don’t see any medieval source for this either. This appears to be completely absurd to me.

I cannot see what Moiraghi says about the Templar cross and Palaeochristian art in Nocera. However, the other source is just a random website, not a reliable soruce.

Some of the other information has been misunderstood. The Life of Gelasius is not the "diaries" of Pope Gelasius II. This is a biography written in the 17th century, not an early source at all.

The French translation of William of Tyre is from the 13th century, and the medieval translator added “near Troyes”. Paulin Paris did not add it. He was simply the editor of the medieval French text. Once again, I cannot see what Moiraghi says, but does this misunderstanding originate with him? In fact, I would go so far as to say that Moiraghi is intentionally lying about this. If he is not lying, he is an incompetent researcher. I'm not worried that I can't see the book. Based on what has been cited here, I don't think it is even worth reading.

I also cannot see Leroy (1997). I’m not convinced that a person with a similar name is the same person as the founder of the Templars, but in any case, this would be evidence that he was from France, not Italy, so it does not concern us here. (For now, I am also ignoring the claims about Viviers and Catalonia.)

It seems to me that since no one knows where he came from, legends easily developed. Some authors like to claim he was from Nocera, even though there is no evidence for this whatsoever. The evidence that he was from Payens in France is better, but also circumstantial. The best we can say is that his origins are unknown.

Unless better sources and evidence can be found, I'll go through the sources and remove everything that is irrelevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. A cursory search brought back:

• Templar Families: Landowning Families and the Order of the Temple in France, c.1120–1307, Jochen Schenk, page 127, "Hugh of Payns, whose family held land near Troyes and the lordship of Montigny-Lagesse, once belonged to the peripatetic court of Hugh of Troyes."
• The New Knighthood, Malcolm Barber, page 6-7, "Under the year 1118 William says that 'certain noble men of knightly order, devoted to God, pious and God-fearing', the two most important of whom were Hugh of Payns (in Champagne) and Godfrey of Saint-Omer (in Picardy), took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In French there is also Simonetta Cerrini, "Le fondateur de l'ordre du Temple a ses freres: Hugues de Payns et le Sermo Christi militibus," in Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jonathan Riley-Smith, eds., Dei Gesta Per Francos: Crusade Studies in Honour of Jean Richard (Ashgate, 2001), who starts off saying "On sait peu de choses sur Hugues de Payns" (we know very little about Hugues de Payns), but accepts that he was from Champagne. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re So you know that Template:Tq but you feel (wrongfully) confident enough to add that Template:Tq while there's plenty of historical documents supporting that, both in the Abbey of Cava de' Tirreni and in Rossano? The Life of Gelasius is not a random Template:Tq, but a collection of documents from his lifetime. You added that Template:Tq, mentioning for example Template:Tq, while he literally calls him "Ugo Pagani" and says he's buried in Ferrara, Italy, in a chapel that literally belonged to the Italian Pagano family from Nocera; are you even serious? You also appear to know that even French authors like Template:Tq recognized he was Italian; and de Pagan (about whom you wrote Template:Tq) literally claimed to be a descendant of the Italian Pagano family. You went on claiming that Template:Tq while there's no such document in existence nor any Template:Tq, while cited sources literally show the opposite? The fact you Template:Tq, or Template:Tq, is not a valid reason to remove published sources in favour of your original research, as you just did. Template:Tq is a perfect summary of your bias. Keep defamation for yourself. Sources don't need your recognition. Btw, I enjoyed how you mentioned confused authors who Template:Tq, Template:Tq, Template:Tq. Template:Tq not Template:Tq, nor more Template:Tq, as there's plenty of connections to Nocera during his lifetime, from the Abbey of Cava (near Nocera) to the Lettera Amarelli in Rossano, as well as the cathedral of Nocera itself, where Hugo took some relics form Palestine. You can't pick sources like cherries based on you own taste and beliefs. I never deleted any source about France, why can't you be better than this? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I can pick and choose sources because I know how to evaluate and critique sources. That's the very definition of what historians do, and I'd be happy to show you how! For the moment, I suspected you would deny the existence of the medieval translation of William of Tyre, so I took a screenshot of it for you. You can also check out the entire digitized manuscript if you want (it's on folio 135v, which I've linked to here). There are a bunch of other medieval manuscripts that have this text as well (but this one is probably the oldest).

I also saw Moiraghi that was active on the Italian Wikipedia many years ago, trying to insert the same stuff, but they rejected it over there, for the same reasons I'm rejecting it here. (I'm kind of wondering if you are Moiraghi...) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re No, you can't, and no, you clearly don't Template:Tq, since adding new text to older documents by different authors is not a "translation" and an altered text doesn't erase tens of sources (even by French historians themselves like Dupuy) stating the opposite, so don't even dare talking about Template:Tq to an historian, since you don't even know what you're talking about. Nor you have any morals nor good faith, considering how you just defamed Moiraghi and how are you now trying to make accusations on me. You should just be ashamed of yourself, both for this offensive attitude and for your massive removals of sourced content and references. This is not constructive at all. You could and should do better. Template:Tq Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Let me try to explain better. William of Tyre is the oldest source we have about Hugh, in Latin, from c. 1180 or so. In the 13th century, an anonymous translator translated William's history into French (and added a few things, including that Payens was "near Troyes"). This isn't a great source, since the 13th-century translation is well over 100 years after Hugh was alive, but it's the oldest source we have, and maybe the best-placed, since the translator could have learned this from the Templars in Jerusalem. But we don't know for sure, which is why historians usually say we don't actually know where Hugh was from.

The 13th-century French translation was "edited" by Alexis Paulin Paris. I think this may be where some of our dispute comes from. "Edit" in this case is a technical term for what historians do with medieval manuscripts. It means he published the medieval text (or really, several similar medieval texts) in a modern book, in a printed typeface that is easy to read (otherwise you'd have to read the handwritten manuscript, as in the images I linked above). Paulin Paris did not alter the text. I'm trusting that you accurately represented what Moiraghi says, since I haven't been able to read the book myself. If Moiraghi says that Paulin Paris added "near Troyes", he is wrong. At best, this is a massive misunderstanding of how medieval texts and modern editions work. At worst it would be a straight up lie. (It's possible that you are misunderstanding what Moiraghi wrote, but either way, this article would still be wrong.) I have to keep harping on this point because it's a very, very basic misunderstanding.

Also, the part of the Life of Gelasius that you are using is not an early medieval text. The original Life was written by Pandulf Pisanus in the 12th century, and it probably would be a great source, if it said anything about Hugh. It might be even earlier than William of Tyre! But the book you were looking at is a commentary written by Cajetan in the 17th century. This is very similar to Paulin Paris editing and publishing the French William of Tyre. Pisanus didn't say anything about where Hugh was from (I'm not sure he even mentioned Hugh at all). All of that came from Cajetan.

The other 16th and 17th-century sources are similarly not very useful. I don't know if we're reading the same books or what, but some of them don't seem to have anything to do with Hugh at all. But yes, some of them do say Hugh was from Nocera. But so what? Why do they say that? They don't cite any evidence in support of this. Historians who don't cite any sources are not very helpful historians. Even if they did cite sources, ideally we would like to examine those too, to make sure they are based on evidence from the Middle Ages. These would be very good sources if we wanted to know why some people int he 16th-17th centuries believed Hugh was Italian. Maybe they could help us figure out where this legend originated. But they are not, in themselves, evidence of anything. Have these sources been added simply to overwhelm the article with too much information? Maybe it would be too much work for someone to check them all...

It's definitely unfortunate that I haven't read Moiraghi or a couple of other modern books that aren't online. Who is Moiraghi anyway? Is he an historian? Lots of people write books about the Templars and they're mostly not worth reading. Why should we trust him, especially if he made such an obvious mistake about Paulin Paris?

I'm especially interested in this supposed letter that Hugh wrote in 1103. On the face of it, it's completely absurd because he wasn't even in Jerusalem yet. This is what I mean about examining the sources, even if a medieval source actually is cited as evidence, because we'd want to be sure it's a real medieval source and not something invented more recently. I would love to have more information about this, but all I can see is that it only dates back to the 15th century, maybe? I'm not sure. But it's bizarre that no historians of the crusades, no historians of the Templars, ever mentioned this letter in Latin or in any translation. I can't believe this is a genuine letter at all.

I don't know what else I can say, I've gone over the sources twice. They just aren't reliable. There's no proof Hugh was from Nocera and there's certainly no reason to emphasize this over the other possibility, that he was from France. Obviously we're going to have to find a different way to settle this but these sources can't stay in the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Aha, I tracked down an image of the supposed letter. This is obviously not real, it's actually laughable that anyone would be fooled by this (I mean literally, I actually chuckled out loud). I can say more about it if you want, but there's no way this is a real letter from 1103. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Od Template:Re Thanks for providing additional proofs that you don't Template:Tq. What you just linked is not Template:Tq Template:Tq. That is a Medieval Italian translation, dating back to before 1469 – when both the original Latin letter and this translation were already mentioned in sources – and certified in 1617 by notary Joannes Berardinus Frecentesius, who wrote "" (« I, notary Giovanni Berardino Frecentesio [...] certify that this is a copy extracted from a parchment letter in Latin form, with the impression of a seal placed at the bottom on the back, exhibited to me by Cornelio Amarelli, of the nobles of the City of Rossano [...], with which it matches [...]. Called to testify, I made this declaration and signed it, in Naples, on 4 August 1617. »). This is what happens when you refuse to read the actual sources just because you prefer to groundlessly defame their authors. What about reading the sources, instead of cherry-picking them on blind-mode, solely based on your personal bias? They address all of your doubts. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

That's even worse. We have a 17th-century attestation of a 15th-century translation of a supposed 12th-century letter that no one can produce. Oh I'm sure you've seen it though, since you're such a master of the sources. Even if you could show it to me, it wouldn't matter anyway, it would definitely be fake. I can't believe no historians of the Templars have ever heard of this, that's preposterous. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re Template:Tq? Like the multiple ones you personally tried to remove from the article? Who cares about people like Pierre Dupuy, right? He's just the most relevant French historian ever, no big deal. By the way, I knew you'd prefer "a 19th-century translation of an undated copy of a supposedly 13th-century alteration of a 12th-century work actually stating something else" over "a 17th-century attestation of a 15th-century certifiedly-matching translation of a 12th-century letter", lmao. By the way, – while as an historian and philologist I had the pleasure to visit both (and read their 12th-century documents about Hugo de Paganis and his family, instead of a random de Pedano) and the Template:Ill (whose documents by bishop Simone Lunadoro confirmed it hosted the remains of saint Giona, which you could know in English as Jonah or Jonas, allegedly taken there in 1105 from Palestine by Hugo) – I'm sorry to disappoint you but I did not make in time to personally check the original Latin letter, unlike most of the historians cited on page, the last one likely being Accattatis in 1869. Your POV is like saying Caesar's De bello gallico is Template:Tq just because you don't have the original copy anymore, despite both are widely attested in historiography. The only thing I could agree with you throughout this whole talk (and we could highlight that on page) is that – unlike Template:Tq as well as Template:Tq – sources like Template:Tq are not direct about the nationality but circumstatial, just like the French claims and many earlier documents I read in Cava, Nocera and Forenza (which I never mentioned on page nor I'm going to, as most of it would qualify as original research). We can expand on that if you want. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remove of all pre-20th century sources. Once that is done, use the modern era sources to write up an origin section for Hugues. Also, Mario Moiraghi doesn't appear to be an academic historian, but an Italian engineer, which makes his work unreliable for Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I get you, but it would not make much sense to only mention the modern authors without mentioning the long-standing sources they explicitly rely upon. Moreover, most modern authors explicitly state to Template:Tq Hugo, since they rarely have early documents to check, unlike older authors who could still check the original documents; so one of the few things Adam and I agree upon is that "earlier the source, more trustworthy it is" in cases like this. Moraghi is not Template:Tq by the way, but fortunately a researcher who always cites his sources; the bibliographies in his works are gold. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. We have academic historians writing secondary sources, we don't need to list every source they use. Also, Moraghi isn't an historian then his work fails WP:RS. Besides, to add any information concerning Hugues' place of birth/origin, we only need one reliable source(Catholic Encyclopedia). An excess of non-English, antiquated sources makes the mention of his possible Italian origin seem desperate, if not even POV pushing. If you feel that Moraghi should be used, there's always Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re Wait, you said Template:Tq, so that's what I was answering to. I could agree that we don't need Template:Tq, but Pierre Dupuy is the most respected French historian ever, and his statement against the French claim is hence very relevant; on the other hand, Baedeker was German and his publications are in English as well. Removing that kind of sources would quite mean making the article useless. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq Are you just pointlessly wasting our time, or what? What are we even doing here. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Is continuously offending all you can do? By the way, have you ever taken a history course in your entire life? That's embarassing at this point. What about reading any article or book about Dupuy? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 04:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Od I just made some edits to the article trying to address both Kansas Bear's point about the list being excessively long and Adam Bishop's points about some authors like Guarini only being circumstantial and Gaetani's commentaries being published in 1638. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Still no good. All of this stuff is irrelevant and/or unreliable and needs to be removed. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at the two more recent citations for the statement about damnatio memoriae in the first paragraph of the Origins section. This book by Moiraghi (Hugo de Paganis, 2013) is also not fully visible to me, but I can at least see that it is self-published (with Ilmiolibro), and as Wikipedia's own policies say, "self-published sources are largely not acceptable". There would be an exception if Moiraghi was "established expert on the subject matter", but we've already established that he's not. The summary of the book that I can read says it is based on "the oldest documents" and not the "arbitrary interpretation" of later historians. This is not someone who understands history or the job of historians, these are the words of a conspiracy theorist. Of course since I can't see the inside of the book, I don't know what he says about damnatio memoriae, but fortunately I am able to read the other source for this section by Roberto Giacobbo (Templari, dov'è il tesoro?, 2010). Just based on the title, this is definitely more conspiracy theory stuff. But the only mentions of damnatio memoriae in this book actually refer to Pope Boniface VIII, not Hugh or even any other Templar. (Also, elsewhere in the book, Giacobbo says Hugh was from France.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You maybe misunderstood that paragraph: the sentence Template:Tq is plural, about the Knight Templar (and what happened to them in 1307–1312), not about Hugh himself nor his nationality; Giacobbo wrote about the trials, not about him; nor he ever studied anything related to the history of Templars before the trials (1307–1312); besides him not being an historian, his work focused on what happened after the trials, and yes, it Template:Tq. I'm quite sure he mentioned the , I wonder if we even read the same books, but alright: I never used Giacobbo as a reference about Hugh, and I have no issue at all with Giacobbo being removed; better references could be added to the sentence about the , which could be removed otherwise. PS: Keep in mind that I'm always ready to accept and address your opinions, but if your only goal is still that Template:Tq, without even trying to look for a meeting point, then we're not even on the same boat, as you're stuck on the POV you were uncostructively edit-warring about. When you wrote on the Noticeboard Template:Tq, I assumed your good faith and will to compromise on the sourced content provided by the other side, so instead of raising the issue about you abusing rollbacker rights (besides pushing defamation, false accusations and edit-wars), I left that talk be archived and came here to both welcome and address your opinions, as I did, with good faith and collaborative spirit, trying to find a meeting point. You can too. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, now the statement about damnatio memoriae is still in the article, but the sources are hidden. But if, as you say, the references are not about Hugh, then shouldn't we remove the statement entirely, along with the sources? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I said Template:Tq, not Template:Tq. All other references are about . If I removed others too, that's only because you asked to, as you expressely refused both Moiraghi and Template:Tq. By the way, as I earlier said, Template:Tq That's it. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, the sentence about damnatio memoriae has been removed entirely (since it not supported by any source). The sources for the "long dated claim" in note b that you described as "circumstantial confirmation" have also been removed, because they do say anything about Hugh's origins. As mentioned in my initial comment, these are Sigonio, Pantaleon, Mazzella, Guarini, Mennens, Pagan, and Hofmann.

I assume you meant to cite a different Pagan book, Divers ouvrages de Monsieur de Comte de Pagan (1669), vol. 3, where the author claims to be a descendent of the Pagani family of Nocera (including the Templar Hugh). It's just as irrelevant as the others, but at least we've found the right one. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Od Adam, I don't have the works of Template:Tq with me right now, but you just found the correct page from Pagan yourself, and as I earlier said: Guarini (1621), p. 224, literally calls him "Ugo Pagani" and says he's buried in Ferrara, Italy – and more specifically, in the former Template:Ill, which belonged to the Italian Pagano family from Nocera, as also mentioned by That is Template:Tq for sure. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Well it's certainly confirmation that Guarini believed this in the 17th century...anyway, I'll come back to this later, I want to skip ahead to the next paragraph about the Life of Gelasius and the French version of William of Tyre. First, as I mentioned above, the Life of Gelasius was written in the 12th century, but doesn't say anything about Hugh's origins. What you are citing is Cajetan's commentaries on the Life, from the 17th century. It is not "one of the earliest sources". Does this make sense? Can we agree on this? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, Cajetan's commentaries were primarily based on Pandulf of Pisa's work (among other early sources), but are you sure Pandulf of Pisa never mentioned Hugo de Paganis? I read parts of his work, but a long time passed. I'd like to check, but I don't have an online version at hand, so I will as soon as possible (if you have an online copy, please, link it to me). By the way, that sentence calls it Template:Tq, not Template:Tq in general; you know that earlier works, by William of Tyre, Simon de St. Bertin and others, didn't detail a geographical origin. Taken away the later French alteration of William of Tyre's work, how many sources detailed a geographical origin before the 19th century? As far as I know, 17th century is still earlier than most of them. If there are more works detailing a geographical origin earlier than that, please let me read them. Incidentally, since I just happened to mention Simon de St. Bertin, I'd like to point out that he reported about Hugo already being in Palestine since the First Crusade (or anyway before the death of Godfrey of Bouillon in 1100), as also claimed in the Lettera Amarelli (dated 1103), contrarily to the French claim he got there 15 years later (as you mentioned before). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You can read the Life of Gelasius on Google Books - this link should take you to the first page, but if not, it starts at column 473 (the pages aren't numbered, just the columns). It's only a few pages long, but it's all in Latin, and I'm not aware of any translation, unfortunately. It mentions a few people named Hugo, but Hugo de Paganis is not mentioned at all. Cajetan mentioned Hugh in the 17th century commentary, but Pandulf did not mention him.

I'm glad you mentioned William of Tyre, that was the next point I wanted to bring up. William of Tyre wrote in Latin around 1185, and didn't mention where Hugo was from. His work was translated into French in the 13th century, and the (anonymous) French translator added "near Troyes." Alexis Paulin Paris published the French translation in the 19th century, but he did not alter the text. The phrase "near Troyes" was added in the 13th century. Do you agree? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I doubt about the reliability of its datation back to the 13th century, but yes, I agree that work appears to have been altered by others too before Paulin Paris, who probably just happened to unknowingly work on an altered version, but yet, do you know of any other source that described the first Templar as French or even just Template:Tq besides that alteration of William of Tyre's work? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 17:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Calling it an "alteration" is not history, this is conspiracy theorizing, and I believe we agreed earlier that we don't want to use the work of conspiracy theorists. The earliest source that assigns a geographical area is in fact this 13th century translation, which added the phrase "near Troyes." It did not "alter" anything. Agreed? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Wait, how else would you call a text where something is added by others to the original text some century after its publication, claiming it to be just a translation of the original work? To "alter" means to "modify" something, nothing absurd. So that's an "alteration" of the original, as they added to William of Tyre's work something that was not in William of Tyre's work. That's a fact, no consipiracy theory. That doesn't even necessarily imply it was done in bad faith. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

So maybe it was done in good faith...maybe the translator knew he was from "near Troyes". Anyway that's a bit besides the point at the moment. The article currently says "later French translations (eg. by Paulin Paris, dated 1879) altered that into Hues de Paiens delez Troies ("Hugh of Payens near Troyes")...establishing a turning point in his historiography" but this isn't true, right? Paulin Paris didn't alter it, and this didn't establish a turning point in his historiography. Since this is cited to Moiraghi, do we also agree that Moiraghi is wrong here? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Od Maybe I didn't reword that clearly enough, but as far as I remember, Moiraghi didn't state that Paulin Paris personally added that idea, but simply that his 1879 version (which included the later alterations) was the first work that echoed that idea and established it in academic historiography, while before that (as far as I read until now) all other works besides the altered French translation of William of Tyre's work detailed a different geographical origin regardless of the language (in fact, you have it reported by many historians in Latin, Italian, French, German and English). How would you reword the mention to the later French "altered" translations? Genuinely asking. And as I already asked, do you know about any other work that mentioned such origin before 1879? Any historian who mentioned that before 1879? Otherwise, I don't understand why you would ignore the disproportionate variety of sources (in Latin, Italian, French, German and English) that consistently mentioned the same origin before that edition of the "altered" translation. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so if Moiraghi did say that, we can agree that he was mistaken, and if he didn't really say that, then the sentence in this article isn't supported by the citation? Now we're making progress!

As for sources before 1879, here's a few that I've found so far:

• Roger Dodsworth, Monastici Anglicani, vol. 2, 1661, p. 517, “Hugo de Paiens de le Troies”
• Johann Jacob Hofmann, Lexicon universale, vol. 4, 1698, p. 375, “Hugo de Paganis, Trecensis”
• Charles Du Cange, Les familles d’outre-mer, 1869, “Hugues de Payens…natif de Troies”. At least, 1869 this is when E.G. Rey published Du Cange’s notes, which were written in the 17th century (he died in 1688).
• Du Cange’s Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis (Glossary of Medieval Latin) also dates back to the 17th century although it was first published in the early 18th century, after his death. It also mentions “Hugo de Paganis, seu de Payens, patria Trecensis”,.
• The Glossarium was then quoted by, for example, Alexandre Ferreira, Supplemento historico ou memorias e noticias da celebre ordem dos Templarios, vol. 1, 1735, p. 193.
• Jean Charles Courtaion-Delaistre, Topographie historique de la ville et du diocèse de Troyes, 1783, p. 340, “Hugues de Payens, de Paganis, parent au comte de Champagne”
• Édouard de Barthélemy, Diocèse ancien de Chalons-sur-Marne, vol. 1, 1861, p. 233, “un gentilhomme champenois, Hugues de Payens”
• Eugène-Edmond Defer, Vie des saints du diocèse de Troyes, 1865, p. 509, “Hugues de Payens, notre compatriote”
• Théophile Boutiot, Histoire de la ville de Troyes et de la Champagne méridionale, vol. 1, 1870, p. 195, “Hugues de Payens, de la maison des comtes de Champagne” (and a footnote that Payns is 12 kilometres from Troyes)

Paulin Paris wasn't the first to publish the French translation of William of Tyre. It was also published in the Recueil des historians des croisades, Historiens occidentaux, vol. 1, part 2 (1844). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! So can you agree that Amico (1636), Gaetani (1638), Dupuy (1654), etc., came earlier than most of, if not all, these sources? Doesn't that make Gaetani's commentaries still Template:Tq? Not Template:Tq, just Template:Tq. By the way, going back to Paris' mention, it looks like you and Moiraghi could both agree with me on the idea that Paulin probably just happened to unknowingly work on a later alteration of William of Tyre's work; yet you think his role was not decisive in establishing that idea in academic historiography, and we may not agree on that; so (at least as long as we don't completely agree on that) we could omit both Template:Tq and Template:Tq and just state that Template:Tq Feel free to add Template:Tq after Template:Tq. Once this is clarified, I'd like to go back to your sentence Template:Tq because I wonder: do you consider all historians stating he was Italian – including French authors like de Pagan and Dupuy – either ignorant (who happened to spread lies in Latin, Italian, French, German and English all over the world) or in bad faith? Why would an anonymous editor (counterfeiter? I dont know) be more reliable than renown historians like Amico, Dupuy, Guarini, etc.? Let's also note that besides being a renown historian and being French himself, Dupuy was remarkably an expert of Templar historiography (about which he wrote multiple works). Why wouldn't he know about the French "origin"/claim? And why would he – or Blaise François de Pagan – intentionally spread lies against their own "national interest"? I totally agree the French claim is relevant and deserves to be mentioned, but I sincerely don't get why you wouldn't recognize there's equal relevance in all of these reports (unless you think all those renown historians were just ignorants in bad faith). Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually the earliest source is apparently Walter Map, also writing in the 12th century, who referred to him as "Payns from a village of that name in Burgundy” This is from Walter Map, De nugis curialium, edited and translated by M.R. James, revised by C.N.L. Brooke and R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford, 1983), and quoted in Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources (Manchester University Press, 2007). I forgot about this! I just found it again, while looking for the other sources I posted earlier.

Paulin Paris didn’t unknowingly do anything. It’s well known that the French translator of William of Tyre added to the text. There are some more recent works about this, including Philip D. Handyside’s book The Old French William of Tyre (Brill, 2015), and Peter W. Edbury's chapter “The Old French William of Tyre and the Origins of the Templars” in Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar (Ashgate, 2007). Edbury writes about the earliest manuscripts of the translation, including this passage specifically. None of this was ever a mystery to anyone, whether Paulin Paris, or the earlier editors in the Recueil des historiens des croisades.

Also, I found a review of Moiraghi's book by the German historian Anke Napp (in PDF form here), who criticizes his "unscientific approach...Sources are cited before their credibility is questioned, and dubious internet resources are used that, even at first glance, contain serious historical errors."

The Italian historian Simonetta Cerrini actually found Moiraghi's book interesting, but she was not convinced. “The question of the true origin of Hugh therefore remains open.” (La questione della vera origine di Ugo resta quindi aperta.) This is from her book, La rivoluzione dei Templari. She had the same conclusion in her chapter “Le fondateur de l’ordre du Temple à ses frères: Hugues de Payns et le Sermo Christi militibus,” in Dei Gesta per Francos: Crusade Studies in Honour of Jean Richard, ed. Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar, Jonathan Riley-Smith (Ashgate, 2001)

Here are some other recent historians of the crusades and the Templars who agree on his French origin:

• Helen Nicholson, A Brief History of the Knights Templar (Robinson, 2010)
• The entry for Hugh (written by Malcolm Barber) in The Crusades, An Encyclopedia, ed. Alan Murray (ABC-CLIO, 2006)
• Albin Wallace's brand new book The Grand Masterss of the Knights Templar in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (2025) (p. 2)

Barber also examined all the evidence for his life in "The origins of the Order of the Temple," in Studia Monastica 12 (1970), and also concluded that he was French. “Theories that he came from Haute­ Provence, or was of Neapolitan origin, can therefore reasonably be dismissed.”

I don't know how to respond to the rest of your questions. Historians from the 17th century aren't more reliable than historians from the 21st. The experts we need to cite here are the best and most important historians of the crusades and of the Knights Templars today - Barber, Nicholson, Cerrini, Edbury, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about this Amarelli letter as well, and I realize that even though it looks obviously fake to me, I guess it's not obvious to you or other readers. Since there's no record of it until the 17th century, referring to a translation that is supposedly from the 15th century, of an original that is supposedly from the 12th century, but which no one has ever seen...it might as well say "forgery" at the top in big red flashing letters. This happened all the time - I'm not singling out this letter at all, there was basically an entire industry dedicated to producing forged documents, and there are probably thousands of fake documents like this. Renaissance/early modern people loved to claim some connection to medieval crusaders, which made their family histories look more prestigious. Sometimes a person who had recently become a nobleman would forge a history to prove their family was always part of the nobility. I'm absolutely certain this is what happened here.

It's also entirely possible that there was a guy named Hugo from Nocera de Pagani, and maybe he went on crusade...but it could be an entirely different person. Even if this letter was real (which, I have to stress, it definitely isn't), it's not really evidence that he's the same guy as the Templar. Anyway, these are just some observations, since I haven't found any historians who actually talk about this letter. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re You're unfortunately wrong about that, but let's go in order. The mention by Walter Map is very interesting, I wonder why historians don't usually mention that; was it ever mentioned before Barber did in 2007? If so, I also wonder why nobody ever noted this in the articles, regardless of the language. By the way, I think that's worth mentioning, just let me know if you would like to add a mention to that source yourself, or I'll do. Going back to the Amarelli letter, you're unfortunately wrong, as I said. You claim it's based on Template:Tq, ignoring or just not knowing that the original has been mentioned multiple times in historiography, and that it was still around until at least 1869, when Accattatis personally checked it. Moreover, historians like Amico or Dupuy (or the Catholic Encyclopedia) didn't talk about a random Template:Tq, but specifically Template:Tq who founded the Knights Templar. Keep in mind that William of Tyre and other early sources all precisely named the founder Template:Tq, not Template:Tq, nor Template:Tq, nor Template:Tq. I find it lovely that you know Template:Tq while also assuming an anonymous editor/counterfeiter was totally in good faith when he altered William of Tyre's work (note that I'm not assuming bad faith, that's simply something we cannot know). Template:Tq, but if so, they would have gone all in mentioning the well-famed Templars in the letter and dating it to 1118, instead of never mentioning the Templars and dating it to 1103. That's the evidence that nobody there was trying to Template:Tq. Again, the original letter was certified by notaries and historians, and it was still around until at least 1869, when Accattatis personally checked it. Please, acknowledge that. By the way, I'd also still like to know if there's any answer to my doubts: Template:Tq Not necessarily definitive solutions to the question, just at least your interpretation. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 09:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq That's exactly it, yeah. This is a pretty basic thing about studying history. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Adam Bishop, this discussion is not eligible for a Third opinion since more than 2 editors are involved. Youcan still follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Rewrite

The stuff about his origins is only a very small part of the problem. The whole article needed to be rewritten:

• I removed all the unreliable Italian stuff, as per the discussion above.
• The supposed Vivarais and Catalan origins are also unreliable and irrelevant.
• For the most part, I've retained the information cited to Thierry Leroy. He seems to be a reliable source...at least, the information in his book seems to be supported by other historians that I'm more familiar with.
• The quotation from Simon de St. Bertin also didn't seem to be very relevant. Clearly he was mistaken, based on everything else we know. I’ve removed that too.
• I removed everything else that didn’t have a source (or for which I couldn’t find a source myself), especially about founding houses in England and Scotland – this is probably true, but I didn’t find anything specific about London or Balantrodoch. He founded houses in other places too so I don’t see why we should mention these specifically.
• Dan Jones isn’t an historian either, although he's generally fairly trustworthy. I found the same information in other places anyway.
• I also removed the “in popular culture” section. I don’t think we need to mention conspiracy theories, or random TV shows.
• I removed all the unreliable stuff from the sources and references.

It could still be improved but I think this is good foundation now. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

You perfectly know that ignoring the entire discussion above is not the way to go. This is not how consensus work, nor it's ok to remove references to renown historians (calling them "unreliable") just because they don't agree with your POV. I don't know if you just happen to love the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but you either achieve consensus or restore the article as it was. I proved you my will for a neutral cooperation, but looks like you prefer to completely erase anything you don't agree with. This is a dead end. I hereby invite you to formally request a third opinion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

We have a third opinion from Kansas Bear already. You want a fourth opinion? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Well there you go, this isn't even eligible for 3O, so we'll have to escalate it somewhere else. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment about sources

User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil Template:Rfc There are two related issues here:

1. Can sources dating from the 16th to 19th centuries be used as evidence that Hugh was from Italy?
2. Can Mario Moiraghi be used as a reliable sources for Hugh's life? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSN is probably a better avenue rather than an RfC Kowal2701 (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I added a new section there as well. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I saw this on WP:RSN and as stated there, my take on the situation is as follows:

• I am certain that Mario Moiraghi is not WP:RS for any historical items. He is an engineer, with no academic fame in history. He is in fact in the "fringe book business" for all I can see. I had never heard of him before, and I am a book lover. Umberto Eco he is not. And let us recall that with a population of 60 million in Italy, authors have to write several books to make any money because the market is much smaller than English language countries. Moiraghi seems to be in the far off fringe multi-book business. I wonder if his naext book will question if Totò was a descendent of George Washington.

• I have only glanced at the article and the sources, but the situation is pretty confused. I do not know much aboutt the Templars, but know that they are a controversial group. From what I can see there is no certainty as to where Hugues was born.

• Finally, why on earth is there a brouhaha about where Hugues was born?

I think the best way is to say we are not certain where Hugues was born. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq Welcome to history writing, haha Adam Bishop (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

No and no. Evaluating the historicity of the claims in centuries old texts is a task that should be left to the published work of recent academic historians. There is no reason to include them for claims which are assessed by or better cited from recent scholarship. Chaste Krassley (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, we have statements from Kansas Bear, Kowal2701, Yesterday, all my dreams…, Chaste Krassley, and (on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard) Red Rock Canyon. There is clear consensus that we can't use the old sources, or the new sources like Moiraghi. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)