I am not sure when I will get the time needed, but I eventually aim to make some major changes to this profile. I think it is good to post thoughts here in case anyone can give feedback.
It is not unusual that I do major clean up of a Domesday profile, and most of the types of concerns are also not unusual, but I post here both as an example case, to get things on record, and because the profile message board is already over-filled - showing that this particular profile has active defenders (which most profiles in this period do not have).
As a first impression: apart from the heraldry mythology there is also the modern fascination with his relatively common medieval name. ...But it is more than that.
In general the article is a cut and paste of poorly sourced story-telling, together with some occasional efforts to point out the existence of better sources. There is no room (yet) for real explanation of what serious historians have written. And serious historians have written about people like this, which is something we SHOULD take advantage of, and certainly not hide from our readers.
One reason for wanting to put a discussion here is the potential controversy. Major pruning is a must. It is always difficult to know how to improve this type of article in small steps, or in a "compromising" style. I feel quite strongly that wikitree has a long history of trying to treat every "theory" equally, which fails terribly in medieval profiles, every single time: 1. It causes extremely long unreadable articles and 2. In practice it does not LET readers understand what better published sources think. 3. It makes it difficult for editors to improve the article in simple edits, because any small additions without big deletions just adds to the mess.
I'll be a bit philosophical and even topical: To me it seems clear that by treating "alternative truth" as EQUAL to real historical research you always in practice promote the fake news, and repress the real research.
In case anyone is wondering, there are a lot of good sources about this person and people like him. Part of the practical issue here is that we can not currently fit them in both because of space and because they are going to disagree with what we have. This is why one possible way forward is even that I make the article on a "Space" page first, but do we need to go that far?