Talk:Esperanza de Sarachaga

Hoax
What's amazing and appalling about this article is the number of editors and edits made since it was fabricated on English Wikipedia in July 2012, and the fact that not only does it continue to exist, un-noticied and un-critiqued, but that it's obvious the original prankster periodically returns, adds significantly to the fairy tale, creates or misuses sources for citations, and until now has neither been caught nor censured. Embarrassing! Delete...Belatedly...Swiftly. FactStraight (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This fragment: "She was also very loyal to friends. Philipp zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld relays that Esperanza found out the plot to depose King Ludwig II of Bavaria and confronted the conspirators with an umbrella at the entrance to Schloss Hohenschuangau, giving her enough time to alert the King and military. "
 * is verifiable. I happen to own the book by Prince Eulenburg mentioned in the source. And it's all there, including the name of the lady in question and a story on her background, details of which can be found in the article as well. All on page 60 of the book. The link provided in the article links to a page with the same text I have here in Eulenburg's book. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you believe that she was a Spanish and Russian princess? And that she married a German baron "dynastically"? But that their daughter married a Belgian "Baron Greindl" (raised to "Count Greindl") in 1902? Morganatically? And that these Greindl morganauts were de-morganatized in 2011 and as a consequence now bear their maternal grandmother's countly title??? I don't dispute that someone known as "Esperanza Truchseß von Wetzhausen née Saràchaga" existed, as described on p. 600 of Gottfried Ritter von Böhm's 1922 book, "Ludwig II König von Bayern: sein Leben und seine Zeit"" That's why I cleaned up and kept that citation where it was in the Ludwig II article. Since that is, however, insufficient to establish the subject's current notability, the article should be deleted. Or at the very least pared down to what actual reliable sources can be confirmed to state about her (i.e., per Böhm, "...commissioners were attacked by the 47-year-old local baroness Spera von Truchseß...Esperanza Truchsess von Wetzhausen née von Sarachaga, of Spanish descent, born Petersburg 1839, married 1862 Friedrich Truchsess von Wetzhausen (1825-94); died after 1909... loyal to the king, who flailed at the men with her umbrella and then rushed to the king’s apartments to identify the conspirators.")


 * The other information we are told about her and her "princely" family is so incredible and extended as to cast the value and accuracy of all else in the article about her into doubt. To wit:
 * "Esperanza was born Princess Esperanza Felicitas Alexandra de Saráchaga Lobanova Rostovskaya"
 * "she was the eldest daughter of Prince Don Jorge de Saráchaga y Uría-Nafarrondo:
 * Don Jorge was Prince, Marquis and Comte de Saráchaga, XVII Lord of Saráchaga, and head of the ancient dynastic House de Saráchaga de Bilbao"
 * "Ekaterina was daughter of the Russian statesman of the Russian Imperial House of Lobanov-Rostov, Prince Alexei Lobanov Rostov and his wife Countess Rucheleff"
 * "Paternally, Dona Esperanza was the co-heir and the Head of the House of the ancient dynastic House de Saráchaga de Bizkaia of the Basque region of northern Spain."
 * "The head of the house was split with her brother Don Alexis until reverting solely to Esperanza upon the very public morganatic marriage of Alexis to a member of his household staff, Mademoiselle Eugenie Marie Champion in 1903"
 * "The Cadet branch and second in line to succeed to the senior line was the Comital de Sarachaga MacMahon line which united with the de Sarachaga-Lobanov Rostovsky in the 1800s and the current Head of the House de Sarachaga is from this unification"
 * "The de Saráchagas succeeded the Sovereign and Semi Sovereign Counts of the Visigothic Kingdom and its successor states of Navarre, Biscay, Aragon, Castile and Catalan"
 * "The current pariente mayor descends from this line. During the many civil wars of Spain and various monarchies Los Sarachaga allied with whomever backed their independent rule"
 * "Los Sarachaga ruled their lands even after the unification of Spain and collateral lines were awarded numerous Grandeeships".
 * "The family dates back to at the earliest 890’s A.D. in the Basque region of northern Spain proceeding from Guenes and Bilbao Others, have theorized that they may have originated even earlier"
 * "The family's status was recognized in Spain, France, Bulgaria, Italy, Poland, Russia, Mexico, England, Belgium, and Germany, which allowed the family to marry into many ruling and former ruling European families as equals"
 * "Doña Esperanza’s father and mother met in St. Petersburg as children because of his family relationship to the Tsar. Their potential union was deemed as dynastically permitted by the de Sarachaga house laws eventhough the Lobanov Rostovsky were only semi sovereign at the time."
 * "When Esperanza was six years old, she and her brother succeeded... to her father’s massive fortune and titles upon his untimely death in a duel in 1845, just as his father before him, Don Florencio de Saráchaga e Izarduy"
 * "Dowager Princess de Sarachaga-Lobanov Rostovsky was unable to care for them and went to stay with her dearest friend Marie Thérèse of France, Dowager Empress of France"
 * "Dona Esperanza’s nephew and adopted son, Don Ricardo Alfonso Mateo de Saráchaga y Arribálzaga, Count de Sarachaga succeeded as Prince de Sarachaga, Prince de Sarachaga-Lobanov Rostovsky...Don Ricardo’s descendants hold them to this day."
 * "Doña Esperanza was one of the wealthiest women in Europe during a time of great upheaval, especially in both Prussia and Spain."
 * "She was confidante to King Ludwig II of Bavaria, Empress Victoria of Prussia, Queen Isabella II of Spain, Empress of Russia Maria Alexandrovna, and the Empress Eugenia of France."
 * "Born in 1871 in Bilbao || Prince Don Ricardo de Saráchaga Lobanov-Rostovsky || Prince Don Ricardo Alfonso Mateo de Saráchaga y Arribálzaga Lobanov-Rostov, Marquis and Count de Sarachaga-Lobanov Rostovsky, Marquis de Planquet, Baron de Saráchaga, Baron de Arribálzaga, Baroness de Torre de Zubialdea, Baron de Urrutia, Senor de McMahon and possessor of all other honors and dignities of the family, was born on the 23rd of September, 1871 in Bilbao, Spain and died 1919 in exile from The Dictatorship of Spain, in Mexico in 1919 assassinated by poison."
 * "His children were Princess Doña Elvira de Saráchaga, Prince Don Enrique de Saráchaga, who drowned in a canal in Mexico City without descendants, and Prince Don Alfredo Alejo de Saráchaga-Lobanov Rostovsky, Marquis and Count de Sarachaga-Lobanov Rostovsky, de Sarachagay MacMahon, Marquis de Planquette, Baron de Saráchaga, Baron de Arribálzaga, Baron de Urrutia etc"
 * "Don Alfredo succeeded his father and brother to all other honors and dignities of the family and married dynastically to heiress and
 * "Mexican noblewoman Vizcondessa Doña Lidia de Garcia de Leon y Avellaneda...a descendant of the Houses of Bourbon and Hurtado de Mendoza and House of Corte"
 * "Don Alfredo's daughter was Princess Doña Ekatarina (Katia) de Saráchaga y Garcia de Leon, Marquess and Countess de Sarachaga.-Lobanov Rostovsky, Baroness de Saráchaga, Baroness de Arribálzaga, Baroness de Torre de Zubialdea...She was born on the 14th of February, 1946...She died young and was succeeded by her daughter, Princess Stephanie.
 * "Don Alfredo and his wife were then to leave the bulk of their fortune and House de Saráchaga to their granddaughter, Princess Doña Stephanie Zobel de Saráchaga, Marquess and Countess de Sarachaga-Lobanov Rostovsky, Vizcondessa de Avellaneda, Baroness de Saráchaga, Baroness de Arribalzaga, Baroness de Torre de Zubialdea, Bilbao etc.. She married dynastically in 2010 to Yacov Crawford Zobel heir to the Counts of Bykovskŷ and Zeballos, and descendant of the Earls of Crawford of Scotland and England. Upon her marriage, her grandfather Prince Alfredo Alejo de Saráchaga Lobanov-Rostovsky, stipulated in accordance to House law that all titles not able to be inherited by a woman to go to her spouse."
 * "Through their joint foundation Zobel de Sarachaga Family Trust, Dona Stephanie and Don Yacov currently run the de Sarachaga-Lobanov Rostovsky foundation who is actively involved with preserving Esperanza's and her brother, Alexis's legacy and the charitable institutions they were a part of."
 * "Doña Ciriaca María de la Gloria Josefa de Saráchaga y Arribálzaga "Comtesse de Sarachaga" *born on the 8th of August 1878, married in Brussels on the 21st of January 1902 to Baron Maurice Greindl raised to Count Greindl. The marriage was considered Morganatic by the de Sarachaga."
 * "Comte/Comtesse de Sarachaga titles for all descendants of Greindl y Sarachaga, reinstated 2011."

FactStraight (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't indicated what I do or don't believe FactStraight, just what I found out about the fragment mentioned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is puzzling stuff. I find the whole dynastic / morganatic thing hard to believe as well. And I have great trouble believing that these people held the title of Prince or Princess. The title Prince doesn’t seem to exist in Spanish nobility anymore and when it did, it was extremely rare. The Princes that were, lost their titles in the 20th century and got Dukedoms instead. Still, there are clues that there is  some authentic material in the article. Including some of the points you mention. There seems to be a book in which she is described as a Princess. That is if you want to believe what is said on this | site: The book is called “The Mad Monarch: The Life and Times of Ludwig II of Bavaria” by Werner Richter, 1954. It would be interesting to check that out. Beside the fact that her father is described as a Prince, the names of her parents and the general history of the family seems to be in order. Her grandfather from her mother’s side was a Russian diplomat Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, who descends from the medieval rulers of Rostov, | see this page. Her granddaughter (child of her adopted daughter?) seems to have married this Baron Maurice Greindl, who was elevated to Count if you can believe what is written | here. There seem to be people called “Conde Greindl y Saráchaga” There also seems to be a line called Saráchaga y Macmahon | both are mentioned here and also, the marriage between the adopted granddaughter and Baron Maurice Greindl is mentioned | here. I don't believe however that Greindl y Sarachaga is a title. I’m not sure what to think. I know that the things I found are just clues and not more than that. This might very well be a mix of real stuff and some misunderstood info or even fantasy. But guess what? The lady is an author herself. She wrote | this book! Now if we could get our hands on that..... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What troubles me here is that the responses being elicited seem to be defensive, implying, "Well, if the woman is not a complete figment of someone's imagination, let's not over-react: why is it so bad for an example of extensive ongoing abuse of titles, history, biography and fact to appear in an encyclopedia article?" So if my tone of alarm in calling for swift deletion seemed an excessive initial reaction, please let me apologize and re-state: I believe that this woman existed, that some courtiers in different countries knew of her and that she probably did something about 150 years ago at the gates of a castle in the once-upon-a-time Kingdom of Bavaria that, while historically insignificant, was arguably brave-hearted and at the least (to me) deeply charming: so let's do find a way to keep (as accurate as possible) a brief reference to her in our Ludwig II article. I'll go a step further: I find it quite credible (although unproven) that she was of noble Basque descent, that her maternal grandfather held a Russian princely title, that she married a German baron, wrote a book no one remembers and that she has descendants who have inter-married with minor nobility, own property and are proud of their genealogy. But that's not all this article says about her. Hebel, I've seen you around Wikipedia royalty/nobility articles enough to know that you knew as I did upon glancing through this article that it is larded up with allegations that cannot be true, that are repeated ad nauseum, that reflect gross ignorance ("...went to stay with her dearest friend Marie Thérèse of France, Dowager Empress of France"), exaggeration, inappropriate tone, trivia and is written at a length out of all proportion to this family's historical significance. Worst of all, it is heavily annotated with footnotes. That means whoever wrote and continues to embellish this article is deliberately inter-weaving fact and fiction, while telling us that it is all verifiable truth. Either s/he is delusional or having a good laugh on us all by perpetrating a hoax on the encyclopedia. I think the latter interpretation is kinder. So why are people trying to justify it instead of trying to cut it down to what accessible, reliable sources and due weight tell us is acceptable in Wikipedia? FactStraight (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Hebel, I am finishing my masters degree on pre war germany\russia and have actually read the autobiography. The informative parts for the discussion is that Esperanza refers to her role as a maid of honour to the Empress of Russia. This position was usually reserved to the highest born ladies so regardless of if she was a spanish princess, which is never asserted to in this article, she was a high member of the imperial court, and was allowed to use de Sarachaga Lobanov-Rostovsky, Lobanov was a princely rank. This may cause confusion but it was common for families to doublebar thier surname in imperial russia, holy roman empire etc.

In addition most ancient noble families assumed a courtesy title, such as Prince, to distinguish them from the patent nobilty. This seems to be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2590:FD30:553B:C2F0:9FF4:53C8 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "...so regardless of if she was a spanish princess, which is never never asserted to in this article"? The article begins with and endlessly repeats references to her as a princess. How does being a maid of honour at the Russian Imperial court, even if true (and many women who held that honorary position possessed -- and claimed -- no title whatsoever, however high may have been their family's social standing), in any way prove, justify or excuse all of the other claimed noble and royal attributions in this article? Nor is it true that "most ancient noble families assumed a courtesy title, such as Prince, to distinguish them from the patent nobility": that assertion would only apply -- if we are not just talking about peacockery that would have been subjected to immediate dismissal and derision at any court! -- to France of the ancien régime, and only to so few families that they and their titres de courtoisie are well-known. That's what makes the claim for this woman and/or her descendants to have inherited, held, passed on and appointed(!) the title of "Prince/ss de Saráchaga" so flagrant and absurd! No such practice was common in nor accepted at the courts of monarchist Spain or Russia. This is fraud, beginning to end. FactStraight (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances surrounding this article and given the serious doubts that have been raised, the least that needs to happen is that this article be purged of all outlandish and unverifiable material. Sometimes we don't have to be that strict with articles that contain some unsourced statements, even ones that make us wonder, but this shouldn't be one of them. The more outlandish statements in this article need to be supported by obvious reliable sources, that explicitly say what they are purported to say (preferably translated in English for verification), quoting chapter and verse! We'll see what's left of this story when that's done. I'm going to make a beginning with that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a good beginning with the purge I think. Removing the more outlandish things but retaining the rest. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is a good beginning. There's still a lot more that needs editing or deletion: redundancies, un-verified assertions (how do we know her mother was a daughter of Prince Alexei Lobanov Rostovky? The Lobanovs were never listed in the Almanach de Gotha), memoir-style and trivia. But let's give the original editor who put this stuff in, and who is probably a relative or of Basque background, a chance to clean it up and salvage what can honestly be attributed to verifiable sources before reducing it further. Thanks for all that effort. FactStraight (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although the Lobanovs never made it into the Almanach, I have found their genealogical entry, complete back to ancestor Prince Loban Rostovsky, fl. 1495, in my 1961 copy of the Fürstlichen Häuser of the Genealogische Handbuch des Adels: Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky is included on page 468 as Prince (Fürst) Alexei (1824-1896). He belonged to the seniormost branch, now extinct, of the family, in which he was the fourth of five children of Prince Boris Aleksandrovich (1794-1863) by his wife, Olympiada Borodin (1800-1874). The Handbuch says of Prince Alexei, "buried Moscow, properties in the Ostrogojsky District, Imperial Russian Privy Councillor, Senator, Ambassador in Vienna and Foreign Minister, Genealogist" ([ ]Moskau, begütert im Bez. Ostrogojsk, Kaiserliche, russische Wirklicher Geheimer Rat, Senateur, Botschafter in Wien und Minister der Auswärtigen, Genealoge). So this largely matches our article on him. But he never married and died without children. We are told in Esperanza's article more about Prince Alexei's putative relatives, "...Countess Rucheleff/Countess Kusheleva, Alexandra Grigorievna. Ekatarina was granddaughter of Princess Ekaterina Alexandrovna Lobanova-Rostovskaya, born Princess Kurakina (1735–1802), wife of Prince Ivan Ivanovich Lobanov-Rostovsky". There are a number of other Prince Alexei's among the Rostovskys, but the details, dates & bios don't match any of this. Alexei's paternal aunt-in-law (not wife) was Countess Alexandra Grigorovna Kuschelova (1796-1848), wife of Prince Alexei Lobanov-Rostovsky, eldest brother of Alexei's father. The "Princess Ekaterina" referred to in Esperanza's article is correctly described -- except that she was Alexei's great-grandmother, not his mother, and since Alexei had no children, that great-grandmother could not have been the namesake of Esperanza's alleged Princess Rostovsky mother. The fact that the maiden names and dates of Rostovsky in-laws is given correctly in Esperanza's article further suggests that the inaccuracies in the article are deliberate distortions done by someone who had access to the correct data and relationships. Again, this throws into doubt all the genealogy about Esperanza that cannot be connected to her by independent reliable sources -- which means, so far as I can tell -- everyone but her husband. We have no idea who her parents were, from whom she got the name Saráchaga, or what her fortune was -- whatever Philipp, Prince zu Eulenburg or others believed about her origin or circumstances. FactStraight (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"Notability"

This keeps being brought up to paint the subject as purely genealogical. It is true that wikeoedia is not a geneaology encyclopedia. Esperanza was widely written about in her own time for numerous reasons covering the exploits of herself, parents and grandparents. This was not a passing fad only relevant to fring group and certainly meets wikepedia standards. So thus is a closed point. Below I have provided the wikepedia standard for notability for review.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]. Esperanza has significant coverage where no original research is needed to glean the fact that she was a person of note, who at the least agreed by even Von Hebel, and FactStraight aided the desposed King Ludwig of Bavaria. this places her as a historical figure relevant to the former Kingdom of Bavaria similar to Paul Revere of the American Revolution. Bavaria was a country with a long extensive history respected and then subsumed by various means by Germany. this subsument which started with Kng Ludwig was the impetus of the German Nation of of great notoriety. In addition her father's family was historically important to the Basque Country and her mother's family was historically significant to Russia. This more then meets notability standards so I have removed that as well.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]

Reliable sources;

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.90.242 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Call for protection for this article and banning of the editor who maliciously calls article a hoax and started a flame war
The proper procedure is to add other points of view by using reliable sources. This is a legitimate historical person cited in multiple news sources,academic sources, etc. which according to Wikipedia does not constitute article as a hoax. This is a blatant and malicious attack and is irresponsible to the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.215.48 (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Hoax" Status Seems to Be Due to Editors with Agendas...
This is the first time I've come across a "hoax" page. I dug into the talk and details of what constitutes a hoax and can only conclude that those labeling this page as a "hoax" have an agenda against the person or family to which this article refers.

Here's my thesis:

1. Normally, if you doubt the facts on a Wikipedia article, you would add a [citation needed], not cite the page as a hoax.

2. The "hoax" section of the talk page is not only longer than the original page but written entirely by a single person. If that person's goal was simply to keep Wikipedia objective, he wouldn't have spent so much time critiquing the article and instead would have deleted the unbelievable parts, adding [citation needed] to the parts needing verification.

3. I've looked at the references and the talk page, and it seems that everything I've found has backed the facts in the article. So to continue to deny these facts is most likely the act of an agenda.

What's happening here seems to be counter to what Wikipedia stands for. I don't know how to remove a "hoax" status, but I would recommend we take steps to undoing what was done by a single person with an agenda. I hold nothing against the person - he's been on Wikipedia longer than I. But I don't think seniority of editors has any baring here.

I admit the original author of the article probably had an agenda too - to make his family member look good. But just look at any article of a past historical figure. It's either positive or objective speech with a "controversies" section at the end.

I highly doubt this is a hoax. It's more likely that this is the result of clashing agendas. For the sake of objectivity, I say we remove the "hoax" label and add a "controversies" section instead.

I will continue to look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damon Verial (talk • contribs) 07:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest taking a look at this page's history. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "What troubles me here is that the responses being elicited seem to be defensive, implying, 'Well, if the woman is not a complete figment of someone's imagination, let's not over-react: why is it so bad for an example of extensive ongoing abuse of titles, history, biography and fact to appear in an encyclopedia article?' So if my tone of alarm in calling for swift deletion seemed an excessive initial reaction, please let me apologize and re-state: I believe that this woman existed, that some courtiers in different countries knew of her and that she probably did something about 150 years ago at the gates of a castle in the once-upon-a-time Kingdom of Bavaria that, while historically insignificant, was arguably brave-hearted and at the least (to me) deeply charming: so let's do find a way to keep (as accurate as possible) a brief reference to her in our Ludwig II article...That means whoever wrote and continues to embellish this article is deliberately inter-weaving fact and fiction, while telling us that it is all verifiable truth. Either s/he is delusional or having a good laugh on us all by perpetrating a hoax on the encyclopedia. I think the latter interpretation is kinder. So why are people trying to justify it instead of trying to cut it down to what accessible, reliable sources and due weight tell us is acceptable in Wikipedia?" Since I wrote the aforementioned comment on this page on 25 May 2015, the article has been substantially trimmed of the most egregious falsifications, so before moving for its deletion as insufficiently notable, I said let's wait to see if those who want to save it can trim it back further to what is verified with footnotes. That hasn't happened. Instead the assumption continues to be "well, if she existed and did something, you have a responsibility to salvage the article -- or you are the culprit," rather than the original author who not only lied about the subject but falsified footnotes to preserve it. I do not have an affirmative responsibility to improve the article's accuracy myself: since I don't believe such sources exist, I have no intention of engaging in a wild goose chase to "prove a negative" (i.e. that most of what is included in the article as contributing to her notability is unverifiable). I did not label every un-footnoted assertion in the article that I consider dubious and in need of sourcing because we are not supposed to do so: if much of an article needs to be sourced because it is challenged, the appropriate action is to label it as a whole, rather than line by line. In labeling it a hoax, that was what I was doing -- calling for it to be sourced or deleted, simultaneously expressing my assessment that what's been written of Esperanza here cannot be properly sourced because too much of it is fiction, distortion or someone's unverifiable, embellished memories, yet accepting the possibility someone might prove me wrong. No one has. I also enumerated on this talk page, which is the appropriate place, many of the assertions I considered incapable of being true, making it clear that even when those were sourced or eliminated (much of which was done painstakingly by Gerard von Hebel, whom I thanked here, although even he admitted that is just a "start" on what this article would need done), I would probably consider most of what remained of the article unlikely too, and therefore in need of pruning and sourcing -- and I called for that additional editing on this page. Subsequent to posting all of that here, I found further proof of the falsification of the subject's background: the first 3 sections all lean significantly on her maternal kinships, which I discovered were entirely fabricated, since the article claims that her mother was a princess, daughter of a Russian prince who, in fact, died unmarried and without children! As I said above, all we know of Esperanza is "this woman existed, that some courtiers in different countries knew of her...that she married a German baron, wrote a book no one remembers." That is enough to mention her "bumbershoot bravery" in Ludwig II's bio, but not to keep a Wikipedia article on her, since most of what has been written in that article was lies supported by fraudulent citations, and what remains is unsourced. The last section on the marriages and achievements of her "adopted" children is likewise dubious because their kinship to her is unsourced -- and non-notable, regardless. The suggestion of substituting a "Controversies" section for a label of fraudulence simply misunderstands what such a section is for: it must cite sources stating that the subject has been considered controversial, how, and why. The problem here is not that the woman's reputation is disputed in literature, but that the allegations about her in this article are mostly fabricated or unverifiable. Feel free to add sources sufficient to document her real life and that life's notability, if you like. Until then, I consider Wikipedia's article on her -- though perhaps not the lady herself -- a hoax. FactStraight (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Damon Verial about the agenda of Gerard von Hebel, FactStraight, DrKiernan (all three have a history of disruptive edits and banning people for not agreeing with them, as seen on their own talk pages). They are obviously pawns (probably paid) of someone who has an issue with this family. We in Mexico know the name de Sarachaga and the repute of the family, and to say different is an obvious attack without merit on a respected family and Mexican history itself. I realize that I may be coming across as overly emotional, but the members of this family have held respected positions of office in the government and business for many generations and still do.

As an academic I will now take a breath and provide the support for my belief that this is an unmerited attack on a VERY REAL WOMAN and more importantly nonsense like the following provided by FactStraight need to be removed: “the allegations about her in this article are mostly fabricated or unverifiable”.

Before deciding to become embroiled in this argument I took a look at the history of the article as suggested by Gerard von Hebel, and found it odd the choice to remove all of the legitimate sources provided by newspapers, court cases, published books, etc. with a blanket statement such as “The other information we are told about her and her "princely" family is so incredible and extended as to cast the value and accuracy of all else in the article about her into doubt” and terms such as “fairytale” used by FactStraight are clear examples of an individual who would disregard academic methodology for rhetoric.

To support my argument I look to both Spanish and Basque sources, who rarely agree, but who find agreement on the notability of the de Sarachaga family and specifically Esperanza de Sarachaga. I point to the citation of the two Spanish Court Cases: Sentencias del Consejo de Estado and Sentencias del Tribunal supremo de justice both from 1868 (https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=2ssDAAAAQAAJ&q=esperanza+de+sarachaga&dq=esperanza+de+sarachaga&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mNWKVeiBEcO6-AGqqYGQBg&redir_esc=y, https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=REVGAQAAMAAJ&q=esperanza+de+sarachaga&dq=esperanza+de+sarachaga&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mNWKVeiBEcO6-AGqqYGQBg&redir_esc=y) for example. These sources were removed without reason or explanation. This court case discusses the inheritance of Esperanza de Sarachaga and her brother Alexis de Sarachaga. It clearly states who her parents were (Gorge de Sarachaga and Ekaterina Lobanov Rostovskia de Sarachaga) and that both children were adopted by their grandfather (Alexis Lobanov Rostofski). Or the Basque historical documents the Euskal-erria which in volume 4 on page 254 (https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=V_oaAAAAYAAJ&q=esperanza+sarachaga&dq=esperanza+sarachaga&hl=en&sa=X&ei=idWKVe-8Lcvl-AHrmY34Cw&redir_esc=y) lists her and her family history. This most basic information seems to be questioned by Gerard von Hebel, FactStraight and DrKiernan. Here are very legitimate sources and fit all of the requirements by Wikipedia to establish fact beyond a reasonable doubt. These legitimate sources have purposely been ignored and cast aside. I must then question all of the edits and rhetoric put forward by Gerard von Hebel, FactStraight and DrKiernan. I do not want to make assumptions as to why these individuals would act so callously, I only want to state that they have and everything they have done thus far must be questioned for academic validity and obvious bias against the subject.

A quick search of the family by anyone with a background in historic research of Basque and Spanish families brings you to the reputable site of Euskalnet (www.euskalnet.net/laviana/gen_bascas/sarachaga.htm) which clearly defines the de Sarachaga lineage without dispute. This source has been used to support such well known individuals on Wikipedia as Sebastián de Llano y la Cuadra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastián_de_Llano_y_la_Cuadra).

I believe it is time to move past the impasse of a “hoax” and work together to rebuild this person’s page back up to be a proud testament to her, her family, and my country’s heritage. Stop with the agenda Gerard von Hebel, FactStraight and DrKiernan, stop blocking the removal of the label of hoax and support us in engaging in a true academic effort to provide fact on a page that is now bereft of it due to your callous disregard for fact. Thank you in advance for stepping aside and letting us do what is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.209.90 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of the article you will see that I nor anyone else has removed information about the lady’s parentage or grandparentage or sources about that. The two references about a courtcase in Spain in the 1860’s has just now been added by yourself.
 * A strange thing is that the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels seems to point out that Alexej Lobanow never married and had no children. Although Eulenburg connects Esperanza’s father to “a Prince Lobanow”. If there was an adoption of Esperanza and her brother by their grandfather and grandmother, (note also that this information has not been deleted from the article at any time in the recent past) we still need to know how that made Esperanza a Russian Princess. One of the most puzzling features of the article as it was before is the description of the lady as a Princess in her own and her maternal grandfathers right (with a Royal status connected to both situations, no less), and the strange ways in which titles were distributed in her immediate surroundings. It is mostly those references that gave pause and made us question more unsourced remarks made in the article.
 * As I’ve stated before, the whole situation makes it necessary for the more outlandish statements in this article .... to be supported by obvious reliable sources, that explicitly say what they are purported to say (preferably translated in English for verification), quoting chapter and verse!
 * Euskalnet seems to me to be an internet provider where people can set up their personal websites.
 * One more thing. The hullaballoo about ‘agenda’s’ doesn’t help to put anyone’s motives here in a good daylight. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that we have two people called Aleksei Lobanov-Rostovsky. The one married to Aleksandra Grigorievna Lobanov-Rostovsky (Kuschaliev), Countess, who is probably the person that is called Countess Rucheleff on this page lived from 1788-1848. His wife lived 1796-1848. The Alexei Lobanov Rostov the link in the article links to lived 1824-1896. He is the one that purportedly never married and had no children. Probably somewhat too young to be Esperanza’s grandfather as well.  I cannot find a daughter called Ekaterina however. There seems to be a daughter called Alexandra Alexeevna Lobanov Rostovska however. Was the alternate Alexei was a statesman as well?  Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, the problem is that this article not only links to the wrong Alexei (Prince Alexei Aleksandrovich Lobanov-Rostovsky), but it mentions facts drawn from his background to imply that he was Spera's grandfather. Worse, the article mixes up Lobanov kinships (but in a deliberate way: ancestresses who were untitled by birth are omitted; those who were titled -- e.g., Countess Alexandra Kuscheleva, Princess Katherina Kurakina -- are substituted for the others, conflating generations in a confusing manner). GHdA lists 7 Alexeys and 5 Alexanders in the Lobanov genealogy. But the one in question is one I mentioned as an uncle in an earlier section on this page, Prince Alexei Aleksandrovich L-R 1786-1848 (he even had the same patronymic as the one of Wikipedia's article): He is found in the 1961 GHdA on p. 466. His daughter "Princess Katharina" is indeed shown on the same page as married to "... Saratschaga (Spanier)". Mystery solved! While this doesn't directly connect Spera to the Princes Lobanov, it does document the Saràchaga kinship by marriage at last. Katharina is the only one of Alexei's five children who has neither birth nor death date, and for whom no first name is given for her spouse. Still, together with the court citation, I think this establishes Spera's documented ancestry. Alexei appears to have been the seniormost Lobanov-Rostovsky by primogeniture (although all male-line descendants inherited the princely title), was a Russian Imperial Councillor and Senator, and Grand Marshal of the Nobility of Tula from 1832 to 1835, buried in Moscow. One of Katharina's two sisters, Princess Ljubow (Nadine) Alexeevna, is listed as an Imperial Russian lady-in-waiting and as the wife of a member of the British gentry, while another sister, Princess Alexandra Alexeevna, is given as the wife of a noble Norwegian who was a courtier at Kristiania (Oslo), but no position, marriage date or place or burial site is listed for Katharina -- in fact, her listing is so unlike the others in its paucity of detail that were it not for the high reputation of GHdA in genealogical accuracy, I would suspect the information was gleaned from a different source than that used for her four siblings -- or that the circumstances of the marriage prompted minimalization, e.g. an elopement (in apparent stark contrast to what our article on Spera previously claimed, "Doña Esperanza’s father and mother met in St. Petersburg as children because of his family relationship to the Tsar. Their potential union was deemed as dynastically permitted by the de Sarachaga house laws even though the Lobanov Rostovsky were only semi sovereign at the time. As demonstrated when Jorge requested permission to marry dynastically to the Lobanov Rostovsky family and the same day the Emperor of Russia, Nicholas I, personally wrote 'agree' in pencil dated June 5, 1837"). Neither of Katharina's parents is listed as the adoptive parent of a Saràchaga or of anyone else, although GHdA does include such information when known (never, however, attributing to adoptees the title of the adoptive parent unless the title was conferred on the adoptee by a sovereign fount of honour). Nor is nobility or any title attributed to Katharina's Saràchaga husband (again, GHdA always reports when a spouse is noble although untitled. For instance, the wives of Katharina's brothers, Princes Gregor and Nikolai, are listed respectively as, "Olga Nefedjew {of the Russian nobility}" and "Anna Schablykhin {of the Russian nobility} 1837-1914, married firstly to Wassail Wladimirowitsch Schenschin {of the old Russian nobility}). FactStraight (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with all of Gerard von Hebel's comments above. It has been repeatedly noted on this talk page that it is not challenged that Spera existed, was known at various courts as Saràchaga or that she was a property owner married to a baron -- so it is a red herring for anyone to rebut the accusation that the woman herself was a hoax, since that accusation has never been made. But I stand by my contention that the majority of information in this article prior to Gerard von Hebel's extensive pruning, and much of what remains, is a hoax, i.e. it is not only erroneous, it is deliberately fabricated and has been inserted in the article by an anonymous editor using different accounts over years, who protected the falsehoods by attributing them to footnotes that don't support the allegations made in the article (either because the allegations are not to be found, are not clearly about Spera or her family, or are cited in unreliable sources). Most conspicuous of these fabrications is the long list of titles attributed to Spera and her relatives, as well as the claims that the Saràchagas are of princely rank and exercised dynastic prerogatives: However important or exalted this family may have been in Basque or Mexican history, they appear to have been untitled in the Spanish monarchy, and none of the sources cited thus far even documents their alleged nobility, let alone the numerous hereditary titles attributed to them, plus princely status. The language used in the article to describe these titles and rank is indeed outlandish and if this article is not to be deleted or labelled a hoax, the unsourced exaggerations must go. The point of labelling this article a hoax -- but not deleting the information in it immediately -- was, as I clearly and repeatedly state above, to allow time and opportunity for those who care about this article or have verifiable information on the subject to correct the errors and untruths, or to prove that my conclusions are mistaken. It is troubling that the defensiveness about this article's content continues on this page and in the article itself: 1. Accusations are made above that documentation which establishes Spera's family background and wealth "were removed without reason or explanation" from the article when, as Gerard von Hebel notes, not only has that information not been deleted by him or me, but it has only recently been added by the anonymous accuser! 2. a new citation to Euskalnet has been added to connect Spera to the Saràchagas, to the Princes Lobanov-Rostovsky and to Spera's adopted relatives now in Mexico. But Euskalnet is not a reliable source and cannot be used to footnote information on English Wikipedia (regardless of what has been done elsewhere in defiance of other stuff exists). The reason why is clearly indicated by the fact that someone has been allowed to add to Euskalnet's Saràchaga genealogy that bogus title of "prince" for the descendants of the adopted children of Spera whom, it is claimed but never documented, was herself a princess by adoption). 3. In all the criticism evoked by my labelling this article's content a substantial "hoax", I still have not seen from the critics a word of rejection or a single deletion of all the false and unverifiable claims made about Spera and her family, e.g. that the Saràchaga genealogy dates back to c. 890 AD, that they hold more than a dozen unsubstantiated titles, that historically they are acknowledge as of semi-royal rank, that Spera possessed one of Europe's greatest fortunese, that the family held close friendship with the Empress Marie-Thérèse de France, that "Comte/Comtesse de Sarachaga titles for all descendants of Greindl y Sarachaga, reinstated 2011", or any of the other fake or dubious assertions that I enumerated in the section above and that went unsourced or with phony sources until Gerard von Hebel and I pointed them out. Why such silence, why no attacks on the agenda of this article? This is an encyclopedia, not a work of fiction. FactStraight (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

'''FactStraight you are a liar and or not reading the sources. And it is obvious from your previous and continuing attacks on this article. That you have a malicious agenda.'''

lie by FactTalk straight again,

When this editor realized they could not get the page deleted, they flagged it as a hoax, then when that was unsuccessful they mailoulsly lied to the wikepedia community on insert date and said the factual accuracy of this article was in dispute since March 2015 when in reality there was no "dispute" until one was fabricated by this "editor" and his accomplices at the end of May 22 2015. I have gone ahead and taken down this imaginary factual dispute status. As it already states that additional citations are needed. Another example of this gaslighting by FactStragiht, etc. is his most recent talk edit. These actions in combination to thier "Tendentious editing" should lead all editors to disregard their words as overly emotional opinions completely devoid of fact. And all articles they work on and edit should be reviewed by Administrators.

FactStraight you are continually and systematically deligimtizimg sources without reading them or discrediting them without any counter reference. To support my argument that you are liar, took down previous sources and then lied about it on the talk page. We are going to use this source as a case study.

The Spanish Court Case.

You recenntly asserted "Nor does the court case affirm that Lobanov was a Prince." FactStraight This is complete dillusion as the spanish source states on pg. 513 the grandfather of Esperanza “el Principe Ruso Alejo deLabanoff. Here is chapter and verses link below to support you not only lie about the de Sarachaga but also the Labanoff Family and all sources related to them together. In addition this sources was originally cited in the article to prove the parentage of Esperanza as the daughter of Jorge de Sarachaga, and grand daughter of Prince Alexis Lobanoff Rostovsky. For other editors and administrators here is the link on google books:

[Sentencias del Tribunal supremo de justicia: año de 18

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id... - Translate this page Spain. Tribunal Supremo - 1868 - Snippet view - More editions de Ugalde, dando aquel á este en censo enfitéutico un terreno propio de D. Jorge Sarachaga á la parte zaguera de la ... el Príncipe ruso Alejo de Labanoff, hasta que ambos se encargaron de la administracion; y habiéndose accedido á ello, ...n m]

In addition FactStraight misrepresents to the Wikepedia community and states that the completely fantasy driven factual dispute occurred in March when in reality FactStraight created out of think air the dispute at the end of May. Where it was wrongly concocted by him and and his hooligans that the article was a hoax. Here is the copy of the timestamp. 22:48, 22 May 2015 FactStraight (talk | contribs). . (21,059 bytes) (+9). . (delete article as an elaborate, careful, prolonged and sustained -- but obvious HOAX, per talk page) (undo)

Your counter response will be to bring up the irreleavnt fact that I am an anonymous IP. GET OVER IT, Wikepedia allows that and you also have a documents history sockpuppeting, of illegally tracing editors and IP so that you can then get them banned for disagreeing.

Now that this has been dealt with I agree on one point that FactStaight brought up which is that the nobility of the de Sarachaga cannot be proved through Euskalnet because it is a user entered, the same way the illegitimate source of the Ghda, or the German Geneaological HandelsBuch etc. is. So both website according to wikpepedia can only be secondary or third sources. I have opened a separate section on the Talk Page for others to review on the nobility and rank of the de Sarachaga family independent of any marriage into the Labanoff Rostoff family. I also will start a new section in the talk page for Notabillity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.90.242 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Esperanza de Sarachaga known as de Sarachaga y Lobanov Rostovksy
Multiple sources cite Esperanza and her brother were taken in by their grandparents formally and were known with the Lobanov Rostovsky name. Whether this was an official adoption is not clear but seems totally irrelevant.

According to Euskal Herria cited in the article.

“Nieta suya es Doña Esperanza de Sarachaga y Labanoff Rostoff, actual Baronesa de Truchsecss” English translation, “Grandughter is Doña Esperanza de Sarachaga Labanoff Rostoff, actual Baroness de Truchsess. I am gleaning and translating more form this source and additionally the cited court case are enough to demonstrated Esperanza’s parentage. In addition I will go a step further and prove that Esperanza was referred to as Esperanza de Sarachaga Lobanov Rostovsky outside of Basque and Spanish sources.

https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/item/BJB437XN7LLKUAAUP6LQ37JHXA7IH4N5

Truchseß-Wetzhausen, Esperanza, Freifrau von, geb. de Sarachaga y Lobanow de Rostow, Aufhebung der Vollmacht für Remy Sinn, in Paris Archivaliensignatur: BayHStA, Gesandtschaft Paris 9999 Kontext: 2.3.4.2.17.1 Gesandtschaft Paris 1-3 >> Ministerium des Äußeren und des Königlichen Hauses >> Gesandtschaften >> 17. Gesandtschaft Paris >> 17.4 Bayerische Gesandtschaft 1799-1914 >> 17.4.6 Justiz >> 17.4.6.1 Rechtspflege und Gerichtsverfahren >> 17.4.6.1.2 Einzelfälle >> 17.4.6.1.2.9 Vollmachten Laufzeit: 1896 Archivalientyp: Akten Sprache der Unterlagen: deutsch Digitalisat im Angebot des Archivs: kein Digitalisat verfügbar Bestand: Ges. Paris 2.3.4.2.17.1 Gesandtschaft Paris 1-3 Rechteinformation: Alle Rechte des Freistaats Bayern, vertreten durch das beständeverwahrende Archiv, sind vorbehalten: http://www.gda.bayern.de/uploads/media/veroeffentlichungsgenehmigung_2010.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.90.242 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I see it the name "Sarachaga y Lobanow de Rostow" simply follows the Spanish usage of combining the names of both parents in that way. In itself that does not indicate any noble or Princely status. I don't think her surnames are an issue here. FactStraight explicitly said in one of his above comments: "While this doesn't directly connect Spera to the Princes Lobanov, it does document the Saràchaga kinship by marriage at last. Katharina is the only one of Alexei's five children who has neither birth nor death date, and for whom no first name is given for her spouse. Still, together with the court citation, I think this establishes Spera's documented ancestry". A more interesting question to me is, were the Sarachaga's of Spanish nobility? Either titled or untitled. No evidence can be found of titles and if I'm not mistaken the GDHA does not mention this family as noble. Furthermore, the link to the "wrong" Alexei Lobanow (an Alexei Borisowitch if I'm not mistaken) has been removed from the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

== "The nobility of the de Sarachaga." I am handing over this section over to a more versed person then myelf on this topic. However a quick google search brought up many sources of the de Sarachaga as noble and higher. ==

I understand that in soley basque sources these families are referred to as much more but I am currently concerned with the Spanish view. A quick search in google:

Here is the gold standard for spanish nobiliary genealogy the late, Vincet Cardenas and his Salazar institute. According to pg. 1584, states the crest of the family and clearly states the nobility of the family. https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=YJLwnhnl5ggC&pg=PA1584&dq=sarachaga+Repertorio+de+Blasones+de+la+Comunidad+Hispánica+-+Vicente+de+Cadenas+y+Vicent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KVqQVbSYC8ni-QGAy5HwDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. I have gone ahead and added this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.90.242 (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This source indicates that there was a Sarachaga family that belonged to the "Hidalgui", which is Spanish lower untitled nobility. Not only a far cry from being a dynastic Prince (as, may I remind, the original article has claimed) but also, from a genealogical point of view, not quite enough to establish that every person with that surname has this status. With all the harsh words spoken on this talk page in mind, I would like to emphasise that the original article was so full of outlandish and absurd claims that the trustworthiness of it's entire content deserved (and deserves) much doubt. As I've said before, statements in this article need to be supported by obvious reliable sources, that explicitly say what they are purported to say (preferably translated in English for verification), quoting chapter and verse! As the notability question seems to have been reported and there are still outstanding issues about the facts, I will be restoring the old header. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Great I am glad we have reached consensus that the family is noble. because you agree with the cronista of Spain. and if you look further at hidalgo you will see that hidalgo applies to entire families Ofcourse this us only the Spanish view on nobility, before you continue making ludicrous statements make sure you back them up with a reference,translated if necessary quoting chapter and verse even on the talk page to support your wild and outlandish original research.

Von Hebel I am really ashamed at your ignorance and continued agenda. Your articles used to be a source of facts but now they all should be revised by an Administrator as you do not read and just parrot other "editors" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.90.242 (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For all I know, someone called Sarachaga may have been made a Hidalgo at some point in history while others weren't. I understand that there are many types of Hidalgui and that great numbers of those classes were rendered to total insignificance at some point. I also heard that at some point in time just about everybody from the Basque country and other parts of Spain were Hidalgui of some kind. We have no way of knowing how that effects this or that individual. Having said that, I have no trouble believing that these Sarachaga's were Hidalgui. As you may have noticed I stopped short of removing all the honorific Don's and Doña's from the names of these people. But don't expect me to take a source encompassing all persons of a certain surname as a reliable source for that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

de Sarachaga referenced as a Marquesal House.
Here is a German source stating Jorge de Sarachaga was head of the House de Sarachaga. Stating Von de Sarachaga and indicating Jorge de Sarachaga as head of the House de Sarachaga.

Becke-Klüchtzner, Edmund von der Stamm-Tafeln des Adels des Großherzogthums Baden: ein neu bearbeitetes Adelsbuch Baden-Baden, 1886

394-433 von Saint-André, Sallwürk von Wenzelstein, von Sarachaga-Aria, von Schäffer, von Schauenburg, von Scheffel, von Scherer, Schilling von Canstatt, von Schmidt zu Dautenstein, von Schmitz-Aurbach, von Schönau zu Wehr, Roth von Schreckenstein, von Schweickhard, Allesina gen. von Schweitzer

Below is the link. http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/beckekluechtzner1886/0394/scroll?sid=c46c35d408bd4572e34f90a6abc12129

Click on it and you can easily find the entry for the family. In german it says:

The German text specifically referring to Esperanza is:

Geroge von Sarachaga-Uria geb. 23.4.1811 zu Manzanares died 11.12.1843 in Mannheim Majorathsherr der Gutter der family Sarachaga in Bilbao Gem. 1837 Catharina Prinzessin Lobanoff-Rostoff geb. 17.2.1815 died 1847 zu Florence

Esperanza von Sarachaga-Lobanov feb. 7.7.1839 zu St. Petersburg Halfes des vaterlandichen Majorates and then her brother is listed., Alejo von Sarachaga-Lobanov feb. 1841 zu Bilbao Halfes des vatrlichen Majorates.

In English:

Geroge von Sarachaga-Uria born. 23.4.1811 zu Manzanares died 11.12.1843 in Mannheim The Head of the House of the family Sarachaga in Bilbao Married 1837 Catharina Prinzessin Lobanoff-Rostoff born. 17.2.1815 died 1847 in Florence

Esperanza von Sarachaga-Lobanov born feb. 7.7.1839 zu St. Petersburg Inherited half of everything her father held.

and then her brother is listed., Alejo von Sarachaga-Lobanov born feb. 1841 zu Bilbao Inherited Half of everything of his father’s.

This German reference along with others goes to support that this is the family described in the Spanish reference that you continue to remove. additionally here is a source which describes the House de Sarachaga, as a Marquesal House.

The de Sarachaga as a Marquesal House

Cajamarca - Volume 3 - Page 320

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id... - Translate this page Nazario Chávez Aliaga - 1958 - Snippet view - More editions ... Sousa, Marqués de la Concordia y Virrey del Perú, y que casó con la noble dama doña Eusebia de Saráchaga, descendiente de los Marqueses vascos de Casa Saráchaga; de don José Matute, emparentado con linajudas familias limeñas, …In English: “of the Basque Marquesal House de Sarachaga.”

This further shows that in other sources that the family is more than Hidalgo, I will provide additional texts to further support the clear high status of the family. As my colleague chose not to do so in seeminly an attempt to build consensus, on the wrong assumption that Von Hebel and FactStraight had such intentions.

I would like to point out that your modes operandi of immediately removing sources without discussion goes against the values of wikepidia as we attempt to build consensus. I am going to replace this reference, which my colleague had done, bringing us to an impasse where I call upon you to stop engaging in this felonious activity because it seems as though you are looking to create a flame war while others are attempting to rebuild the vandalized page. We are putting forward references that have withstood academic rigor as we build, Von Habel and FactStraight you continue to use "opinion" and "here say", and have continually posted on this talk page posts bereft of fact. By continuing to act thusly Von Hebel and FactStraight are standing in the way of others providing the necessary references.

A little about me. I am a Doctor from UNAM university in Mexico. I am not an editor as I am far to busy to be one but this subject came to my attention and others in my academuc circle. 201.141.155.115 (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Dr. UNAM

Also googling Marquis de Sarachaga. You find Esperanza's brother,Alexis referred as Marquis de Sarachaga in legitimat sources talking about him individually, not the family.

The book is called L'occultisme dans la politique: De Pythagore a nos jours (French Edition) (French) Paperback 1994 by Gerard de Sede (Author)

Here is the link to the book. http://librarun.org/book/21962/236

Here is a French text referring to the Marquis de Sarachaga as founding the Le Hieron Val D’or. eXACT IMAGE OF THE TESXT BELOW. End of paragraph 2. “le marquis de sarachaga” In English The Marquis de Sarachaga. It is irrefutable fact that Esperanza’s brother Alexis de Sarachaga Lobanov Rostovsky founded the Hieron Val d’OR. This is a sources stating this already in the article. 201.141.155.115 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC) A little about me. I am a Doctor from UNAM university in Mexico. I am not an editor as I am far to busy to be one but this subject came to my attention and others in my academic circle. Dr. UNAM

Edit war
Collaborative discussion halted, meatpuppets being used to take ownership of article despite objections voiced by editors who have history of working on this article and providing reliable sources to document content. Anons in section above acknowledge that they are meatpuppeting to compel inclusion of disputed content, citing partial footnotes and applying synthesis to claim that the father of the subject of this bio is a titled nobleman whose rank is asserted to substantiate her nobility, but without clear references stating unequivocally that she is the daughter of the marquis alleged. Article has been under gradual improvement as discussion led to deletion of massive amounts of erroneous, falsified and unprovable article content, and remaining areas of dispute (notability, accuracy, reliable sources, exaggerated content, etc) were under discussion when new anons decided to repudiate good faith and impose their preferred version on the article without the consensus of other editors already engaged and without reconciling conflicting, incomplete and dubiously reliable sources. FactStraight (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources were provided to all editors and constributors on the talk page with additional explanation to build consensus and start/continue discussion. Fact Stragiht it has been documented on this talk page that you have continually removed reliable sources references and not explained or provided alternative references as is required by rules of Wikepedia. Your actions constantly repudiate good faith. If you were acting in good faith you would converse about references and interpertations and indivudals have contonually provided you with this oppurtunity which you have ignored. There is an entire dedicated to you and your agenda along with questioning all of the statements you have made on the talk page. You have a history of forcing your version of hisotry and rewriting facts to suit your version and agenda. In the secion above are listed three sources, two of which list the names of individuals in the article. You have not repsonded to these or any sources and simply removed them. Thwarting any hope for consensus. FactStraight should be banned again and the original ban should not have been removed. 201.141.155.115 (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

==Edit War started by FactStragith and Von Hebel.

FactStraight is sock puppeting as he has been convicted of in the past. There was no good faith for consensus as this editor never put forward a source or a consensus opioon, only enflamed other ediitors and anyone who has attempted to put sources which go against his bias and ludicrous cliams spewed ad nauseum WIHTHOUT CITTIONS OR SUPPORT!!! Despite being presented with legitimate sources, page numner, translations, summaries etc. as requestd. This information is then taken by FactStraight and used to accuse the people putting forward the informatiom. BAN HIS IMMEDIATELY, AND LOOAT AT EVERY ARTICLE HE READS OR EDITS. He is angry that there are sources which prove him compltely wrong on everything he has written.

Edit War started by FactStraight and Von Hebel.
FactStraight is sock puppeting as he has been convicted of in the past. There was no good faith for consensus as this editor never put forward a source or a consensus opioon, only enflamed other ediitors and anyone who has attempted to put sources which go against his bias and ludicrous cliams spewed ad nauseum WIHTHOUT CITTIONS OR SUPPORT!!! Despite being presented with legitimate sources, page numner, translations, summaries etc. as requestd. This information is then taken by FactStraight and used to accuse the people putting forward the informatiom. BAN HIS IMMEDIATELY, AND LOOAT AT EVERY ARTICLE HE READS OR EDITS. He is angry that there are sources which prove him compltely wrong on everything he has written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.155.115 (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected for 2 days
If you cannot come to a consensus amongst you please consider the other options laid out at WP:DRR. --Neil N  talk to me 03:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

And now two more weeks. Next time there may be blocks. Use options laid out at WP:DRR. --Neil N  talk to me 20:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of titles in this article and the edit war about them
This whole thing about the Sarachaga family is getting more confusing and obfuscated by the day. Now we have (thanks to dr. Unam et al.) p 399 of Becke-Klüchtzers book which names the Sarachagas this article is actually about, as belonging to Spanish nobility. Which doesn’t surprise me since I suspected that all along. It also mentions them as Majoratsherren, which is interesting because that was also in the original article, but with no titles whatsoever, although titles are emphatically mentioned for every other titled family in the book. Which makes you wonder how a source that is regarded as trustworthy by the IP editors could omit that rather important piece of information. Instead we get a book about Catholic mysticism that mentions a further unidentified Marquis de Sarachaga, and the synthesis is again made that Spera and her family are Marquises. In the several books and websites, including what was alleged in this article (and I’ve seen the Catholic book also) that I encountered so far in this matter, I’ve heard Sarachagas being described as Princes, Marquisses, Counts, Barons (for brother Alexis in four mentions of the Musee du Hieron, and an associated cabal, apparently now also a Marquiss) and Hidalgui. I’ve also seen at least three different coats of arms. To me this brings one important point home. Do not ever assume to be able to equate a surname with a given status or title to every person by that surname. Which would be synthesis anyway and is not allowed on Wikipedia. I myself had this experience when I was young, when I found a coat of arms of a noble family called “von Hebel” who turned out to be no relations of mine whatsoever! Now a note on the colourful behaviour of, and accusations by, our IP editor. They have been introducing different sources, most of them not saying what they are purported to say, some of them brought forth conclusions drawn on the basis of untrustworthy syntheses, and some of them were unverifiable. Besides that they have reacted to our objections with colourful accusations and insults. Liar being just one of them. What they want to achieve with the March / May thing in the tag is beyond me. I should be ashamed because my articles used to be full of information.... Honestly I never contributed an article to Wikipedia ever! And now FactStraight is of course also a “convicted” sockpuppet”. Oh yes and we have an agenda. For as far as I can tell I’ve never met a person named Sarachaga in my life and certainly have no intrinsical wish to deprive them of any titulature that may rightfully be theirs. It’s just that this article already has a history of fanciful items being introduced, which should make us careful. The most recent episode has shown that again. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with you von Hebel. This family is confusing but it is our jobs as editors and contributors to read sources and try to figure this out. In addition the original request was to bring in new sources to vet out the information. Which is why new sources have been introduced. The new source I am provinf now is extrememly simple, straightforward, and verbatim, and cannot be accused of synthesis as it states the name of the subject of the article. I have been studying the family for years and agree with you they have been listed as everything from Hidalgo to Prince and titles in between. So lets look specifically at the subject of this article which is Esperanza de Sarachaga Lobanov. According to the German source which I referenced there is von Sarachaga Uria, a NOBLE family of Baden, where Esperanza is listed as Sarachaga-Lobanov, as a member of this family via her father. This von Sarachaga Uria family is accorded the status of von Sarachaga, which as I understand accords them a Herr von Sarachaga Uria. This source speaks to her born a daughter of a nobleman. Under this new information that she was born the daughter of a nobleman in Baden. I did a quick search under geb von Sarachaga Uria which is german for born von Sarachaga Uria and found the below.

Königlich-bayerischer adeliger Damen-Kalender: Auf das Jahr...

https://books.google.com/books?id... - Translate this page 1868 - Snippet view - More editions Gräfin von Kolowrat-Krakowsky. Ow, Elisabeth Freyfrau von, geb. Freyin von Handel. '''1854. Truchsess -Wetzhausen, Nadejda Felicitas Alexandra Freyfrau von, geb. Freyin von Sarachaga.''' Beigersberg, Charlotte Gräfin von, geb. Freyin von ...

Here is a legally valid source in which states in English as requested.

“Royal Bavarian noble ladies calendar”

Truchsess-Wetzhauzen, Nadejda Felicititas Alezandra, Frefrau, BORN Freyin von Sarachaga.

This states that according to the Royal Court of Bavaria she was listed Frefrau, or wife of Freiherr Truchsess-Westhauzen, as BORN Freyin von Sarachaga. For those unfamiliar with german titles of nobility Freiherr is translated often to Baron but arguably the ancient nobility, or Uradel families were accorded higher salutation then the Breifadel, or new nobility. This is according to the Freiherrn wikepedia. The wife of a Freiherr is a Frafrau, and the daughter of a Freiherr baron, is a Freein von or Freyin von.

No synthesis is needed to establish the fact that Esperanza was born Freyin von Sarachaga aknolwdged by a “fons honorum” THE KING OF BAVARIA. In conclusion No longer is there a question of fact of whether Esperanza de Sarachaga was born titled nobility via her father and whether her family was referred to by third party sources as titled nobility. Von Hebel stop crying wolf about synthesis, I echo the sentiments of other contributors on this forum, READ THE SOURCES AND DO YOUR JOB. 201.141.155.115 (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Dr. UNAM
 * Your link doesn't work. Why is she now called "Nadejda Felicitas Alexandra" instead of Esperanza? What is it, Baden or Bavaria and when were these people ennobled in Germany? From what person its this reckoned? Why were they Marquises from Peru or Mexico or in France earlier this day?(that link doesn't work either btw) I've seen some claims on the Internet that Jorge's brother Marriano was a Baron in Germany. If so that doesn't have to pertain to Esperanza and should be listed in the GHDA. Perhaps under von Uria-Sarachaga? Marriano was named that in some documents but always "Herr". No titles attached. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The link works for me and I provided enough for you to find source, regardless of link, publication name and page is included. They are recognized nobility in Germany, nobody asserts they were ennobled in Germany as it is clear nobility was recognized not granted, we are talking about third party sources describing them as noble in Baden, my first German reference Sarachaga Uria, has nothing with the brother, though it does speak to the status of the family that documented younger brother is titled. as has been documented previously they are ancient and noble and been referred to as these other titles. this is not complicated, stop complicating with your original uneducated assertions, TOTALly DEVOID OF FACT OR CITATION, That she and her family are nothing. So far the page has shown through a plethora of sources in all languages translated to English, NOT REQUIRED BY WIKEPEDIA, That the original page is closer to the sources then your agenda, consensus needs to be built from sources. AT THIS POINT THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON YOU TO PRESENT THE CONTRARY. With specific sources stating the family, and individuals mentioned in this article are not noble. BEING LISTED WITH NO TITLE SUPPORT NOTHING AND YOU KNOW IT. Put forward a source listing them as commoner. Which I highly doubt you can and if you do it will go against 100's of sources to the contrary and will be viewed as unsubstantiated minority opinion. Which to date you been asserting a fringe unsubstantiated minority opinion purely based on bias and heresay and have yet to put forward a single source to support your, as referenced in talk page "delusional" claims.

Regarding her names, Esperanza has multiple first names, as most titles noble people do. yet again you have shown you are not educated in this area and should not comment on the talk page or edit this article. but the source says she is married to Truchsess and contains her many first names. So this source and the other sources listed by the majority opinion stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.155.115 (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read through the talk page carefully we have already established that these people were noble, so there's no problem about that. If they were annexed into the German nobility as Barons or Freiherrn, there must be a record in the Gotha or in the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels. That must not be hard to find and is the least we must ask. I don't have these works at home but it should be in there. The situation concerning Mariano and Jorge is such that they are nowhere mentioned with titles. Not even in official documents from the Baden court, where Mariano was appointed a Kammerjunker. Note that all other noble persons in these pages are mentioned with their titles! So would Mariano be if he had any. Not even in a book by Jorge himself in which he names every titled person by their titles . Titles for these two can only be found in websites that everyone can download to or in Wikipedia. Noble persons often have more than one first name and this article names them for Esperanza. Nadedja isn't one of them. Nor is it found in other documents about her and her family, like the Baden nobility book by Becke-Klüchtzner you cited earlier. I get the feeling that you are looking for stuff on the internet and that what you find sometimes comes close but just not close enough. This situation keeps getting ever more puzzling and is changing almost by the day. Let's see what's in the GDHA or the Gotha, I don't have a copy here but I will look into it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you might want to put your links between brackets like this: [.......]. That way they become clickable. If you just paste them in the text they become abbreviated and get lost. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus reached on the inherited de Sarachaga nobility of the subject of the article.
CONSENSUS REACHED REGARDING NOBILITY OF SUBJET, THIS POST SHOULD BRING US TO CONSENSUS ON A TITLE RECOGNIZED AND USED

I am glad that we have finally reached consensus that Esperanza inherited de Sarachaga nobility. Which previously had been asserted that they were not and that any marriage to them was probably minimized or not recorded because of their non nobility. So I am glad we can now move past this.

It is our job (according to Wikipedia) to report the findings of others and use logic not synthesis to compile and present findings from third party sources. In looking at the names associated with the subject on this Wikipedia: Alexandra Felicitas is clearly listed as two of her first names. For further support we find the publisher Behrend in 1914 listing all of these names in Berliner Titeldrucke (Berlin Publications). She is listed twice on pages 782 and 783, as she published twice, first: “Aus vergangenen Tagen. Von (Esperanza Felicitas Alexandra) Bnin Truchsess-Sarachaga y Lobanow, Kgl.Palastdame. Munchen:Herder [in Kimm] 1913.” and the second: “Sarachaga y Lobanow, Esperanza Felicitas Alexandra Bnin Truchsess-Labow, Esperanza Felicitas Alexandra Bnin Truchsess-Sarachaga y s. Truchsess-Sarachaga y Lobanow.”



Clearly both state the names Felicitas Alexandra. Before you question this, keep in mind this is not self-published, the work was published by the reputable publishing house of Behrend.

Another source for Felicitas Alexandra is La Real Orden de Damas Nobles de la Reina María Luisa (fundada en 1792), published by Real Sociedad Económica Segoviana de Amigos del País, 1998. Wherein it lists her as Esperanza Felicitas Alexandra de Sarachaga. The book itself can be found on Google books here: but without a preview. Thankfully, we can find the contents of the book listed on Geneall for all who do not have a copy in their home library, she is listed #1008 here:

There is NO QUESTION if this is Esperanza, as it states her first names, her last name, and her being married to Truchsess von Westhauzen. Here is the source again for review:

“Truchsess -Wetzhausen, Nadejda '''Felicitas Alexandra Freyfrau von, geb. Freyin von Sarachaga'''.”

Alexandra Listed in reference to Esperanza Felicitates listed in reference to Esperanza Nadeja - New name to be added to to say, also known as.

Because there seems to be confusion about names, we can easily solve this by providing all three source and the already present source on the page stating her entire list of names, adding also legally in Bavaria known as all of the names except for Esperanza. To clear up any confusion for those of you who are uneducated in the use of multiple first names, nicknames, etc. by titled individual at separate countries’ courts.

To restate, simply because “Esperanza” is not stated doest mean we should cast aside this reference, though that is has been constant reaction to all legitimate sources by both Von Hebel and FactStraight. The neutral point view, Von Hebel, for someone attempting to build consensus would be to propose a change to the name and add a “known as” sentence in the Article itself. Which has been how other contributors have dealt with the use of multiple names in all Wikipedia article. Lets stop casting aside sources, and try to use the information they provide.

Regarding families and last names. Clearly you did not read my last correspondence to you which stated that showing the family using their last name with not title absolutely has no bearing on whether they are titled or not once it has been established by third party sources they were referred to as titled. In this case the source von Sarachaga Uria established nobility and the court record from a Fons Honurum stating Esperanza as Alexandra Felicitatas etc. established a third party source naming her as titled. This means that just because in some sources the family is listed without a title does not mean they do not have it, in fact once we have third party sources showing them with the title (as we do) it is irrelevant if they are shown with or without it in other sources.

Also, no where is it required that all titles must be listed in the Gotha or GHDA. These are incomplete sources as they have left out many families in their earlier editions. It seems you are under the impression that Germany was unified at this time period or for most of its history. This was not the case and often royal courts, local government and authorities kept their own court records. So a court record is just as, if not stronger, then the Gotha or the GHDA. So lets put aside our bias favoring these sources and utilize local sources when found to further support the information about the subject, in this case the document from the Royal Court proving that Esperanza was born not just noble but titled. 201.141.155.115 (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder what happened to the Marquess claim in the Cajamara book? I'm interested in seeing that link but since it doesn't work and I'm not able to find it on Google books, perhaps you could provide it for me again. Thank you. Now I don't need to be taught about the use of multiple first names. I have four of them myself and I assure you they haven't changed since I got them at birth. Am I to understand that the use of first names in noble circles comes down to making them up as you go along? And I wonder what light this "Nadedja" thing casts on the trustworthiness of the publication you found it in. What is a "Damenkalender"? It seems to me it's like a ball register for high society, and if they don't care about official first names who would balk at calling someone a born "Freiin" who is already a Freifrau by marriage?
 * The way I see it is that, in order to be born a Freiin, your father has to be a Freiherr. We have seen enough publications about and even by George de Sarachaga to observe that he is never mentioned as such, nor does he call himself by that title, not even in the context of very formal letters he wrote, in which he names everyone by their title. These are addressed to (among others) the person who shot him in a duel. He is always just Herr de Sarachaga-Uria. Also Esperanza never uses it in connection with her birth name in all the quotes you give above. In Baden this family seems to have been somehow recognized as noble (perhaps as foreign nobility, perhaps annexed into Baden nobility) but with no title but just as "Familie v.", just like all other untitled noble families. This according to the Institut deutsche Adelsforschung (see link). If you want to pursue this, her father would have to be created a Freiherr in the German nobility (he wasn't one at birth obviously). Which of course is not impossible but rather unlikely since, as I understood, he went through the courts (I'm not sure if he spent any jailtime) for trying to shoot at someone (in a duel)
 * Your remarks about the Gotha and GDHA need some explanation. Early editions don't "leave out" stuff. All editions together are to be seen as listing the noble families in order of their appearance on the stage of history. It also lists the members and as new ones are born, new editions appear. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You write: "This means that just because in some sources the family is listed without a title does not mean they do not have it, in fact once we have third party sources showing them with the title (as we do) it is irrelevant if they are shown with or without it in other sources." We are looking for sources that are ABOUT noble titles. If they are not mentioned there, while the people that are supposed to have them are, we can pretty safely conclude they don't have those titles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The death of her grandfather Florentino guerilla warfare or a duel?
Something I noticed just now: The article has stated al along (and still does) that: "Doña Esperanza's grandfather lost his life in the guerrilla struggle of the Peninsular War during the Napoleonic Wars. Her grandmother then took shelter with a French general who was originally from Baden and sent the children out of Spain to Karlsruhe to better ensure their safety. After the war, the general married the widow and the children received their education in Baden."

The original article however also stated that: "When Esperanza was six years old, she and her brother succeeded to her father’s massive fortune and titles upon his untimely death in a duel in 1845, '''just as his father before him, Don Florentine de Sarachaga, had also died prematurely in a duel." '''

I distinctly remember taking out some of that information myself, at the time not realizing that this can't both be true. We recently discussed this link. It gives the death date for Florentino as 1825, which is too late for the peninsular war. His widow remarried in 1826. Now I know that the story about him being killed during the peninsular war comes from Eulenburg. But the source for Florentino being killed in a duel was given as the Euskalnet site. When looking there I can only conclude that at this point not even a date of death can be found for Florentino, let alone the story about him being killed in a duel. Which makes you wonder if that information was there in the past, and has since been removed from it? This is as strange as many other things about the original article. It certainly makes me wonder about the veracity of the story in the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This book creates some clarity in the Florentino situation. It's a shame that page 349 is missing from the Google books example but what becomes clear is why the story about Florentino dying in the peninsular war or alternately being killed in a duel was made up by later generations. It turns out that Maria Micaela (the grandmother) didn't take her children to Baden with General von Lasollaye after the death of her husband, but when he was still alive and well in about the year 1813. There is even mention that the two sons (Jorge and Mariano) were von Lasollaye's children and not Florentino de Sarachaga's. A nullification of Maria Micaela's marriage to Florentino was attempted but failed. In 1814 another son was born to Maria Micaela in Karlsruhe. When Florentino died in Bilbao in 1825, Maria Micaela was free to marry von Lasollaye which she did in 1826. So these stories, that couldn't both be true, were made up to avoid talk about a family scandal. I also have a remark about the adopted nephew and niece. Alexis and Esperanza were their wards after they were orphaned. In order to have a niece or nephew you have to be an uncle or an aunt. So these children must have been the children of a brother of Alexis and Esperanza. But there is no brother. Could the writers of the original article have meant cousins instead of nephew and niece? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pruning some more
I'm in the business of making the article look a bit more like a Wikipedia article and pruning some of the all too colourful (and aggrandizing) language that had remained after earlier pruning. I also removed the story about the peninsular war and cut out some repetitive statements. I have some questions about the "adopted children". Who were their wards? Spera and Friedrich or Spera and Alexis? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also removed the table with descendants of the adopted (?) children, while retaining some information about them in text. I did add a cn tag. The article is about Esperanza and not about the genealogy of the descendants of her niece and nephew. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Inserted yet again another legitimate source to disprove your agenda that she is untitled. As previously stated this source lists her name and the title she was born with from her father, “Freyin”. This is a source directly about the subject of the article. There should be absolutely no reason for removal, a removal of a source such as this (which has been done numerous times before by Von Hebel and FactStraight) is vandalism of the article and should be dealt with accordingly by an administrator.

Von Hebel your malicious and misguided efforts at skewing of facts, specifically in regard to your abhorrent translation of this text. Since this translation was so bad I am calling into question your ability to even read the GHDA or Almanac de Gotha, or any source of German origin. In addition, you have had problems with English, so I question your understanding of English as well, which makes your comprehension of the article, and English sources suspect.

The original german title of the source which you referred to as a “ball calendar for ladies” is: “Koniglich Bayerischer deliver Damen-Kalender aug das Jahr 1868” and the title of the chapter is: “Anzeige der Damen, welche als Kammerjunkers-fFrauen den Hofzutritt erhalten haben”. Note the official seal of the Royal Family on the title page (which would be illegal to use this seal without the Royal Houses permission). All of the information included in the book is about the Royal House, supporting that this is publication is from the Royal House of Baveria, and LAW IN BAVARIA. The book was written by the “Koniglichen Houffouriren”. To make things simpler I’m not even going to translate this in its entirety because it seems to make little difference. What I am going to do is point out the numerous use of the word Royal, and go further to say how dare you Von Hebel even consider calling a royal publication of the Royal House of Buvaria simply a “ball calendar for ladies”. You are illiterate and uneducated. Anything published by the Royal House of Buvaria would be done with the authorization and backing of the King of Buvaria and WOULD BE LAW. To simplify this for you and FactStraight who are incapable of the most basic reading comprehension, this means that according to the King of Buvaria in a document published by the Royal House of Buvaria the subject of this article was considered born “Freyin von Sarachaga”. THIS MUST BE ADDED IMMEDIATELY. This is fact. No argument. She was born a Freyin as stated by the King of Buvaria.

Whatever it says in Baden is completely irrelevant as it was a different country. And any attempt to say it is the same country is synthesis and a lie, and yet again a clear example of your lack of knowledge regarding German history and specifically the subject of this article. You should not be allowed to edit this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.33.20.102 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have not reached consensus about this matter. Considering the repeatedly demonstrated eagerness on the part of some to aggrandize Esperanza with the most exalted titles and other properties, I’m not going to agree to this on the basis of a snippet from a booklet with handy tips for ladies, that can’t even be bothered to get her name right. Do you know what a “Königliche Hoffouriren” is? It’s no more impressive that the text “by Royal appointment” on a whiskey bottle or in a shopwindow. Technically, your source doesn't attest the claim you added to the article, since the identification remains dubious. Not for the first time also. I will tell you however what I will agree to. I’ve been looking in the GDHA. Her family has no article in there and there are no mentions of her, her brother or her father in there. Which I had hoped for since she was married to a Freiherr. The entry for her marrige, as I have found out, seems to be in the Gothaische Taschenbuch für Freiherrliche Häuser, volume 30 from 1880. Unfortunately that work wasn’t available in the University Library in my city. It’s also not available on Google Books or other services (as far as I could find). If, in the entry for her marriage there, she is a Freiin, Countess, Marchioness, Duchess, Princess or Empress, I’m going to add it to the article personally. If it’s not in there it doesn’t exist. You may balk at the significance of these works but that only shows you have no idea how to properly attest these matters. Again, this could only be the case if her father was made a Freiherr at some point in Baden or somewhere else, because he obviously wasn’t one at birth. This may very well have happened. He would have to have been created a Freiherr, because an annexation from an equivalent foreign title is highly unlikely. In that case he would have to be born a Baron in Spain. In Castille and the Basque country however the title Baron doesn’t exist as I have heard. All Spanish Barons are from Aragon. We will somehow find out and put the matter to rest. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gerard von Hebel that we still have a distance to go toward achieving consensus on this article for several reasons:
 * Excessive focus on that which is not in significant dispute. Spera was the daughter and co-heiress of a Spaniard, her maternal grandfather was a princely Russian, she was a baroness, and she was known of by courtiers at several courts. It's a red herring to dwell on such issues at this point.
 * Her notability is in question because it cannot be claimed by right of comparison to other articles: once its notability is challenged (and I've challenged it), it may be affirmed on three grounds; deeds, power/wealth or position. Her published book is forgotten. The tale that she held troops at bay who came to confine or arrest Ludwig II of Bavaria is obviously apocryphal. Her wealth is documented as substantial but not sufficiently so to merit the claim that she was the wealthiest woman in Europe as this article once proclaimed. One might be deemed notable as the ancestor of illustrious descendants, but she had none, nor have any cousins who may have been her heirs been proven to be her lawful adoptees -- any title they bore/bear would have been inherited from her brother or other relative. Her husband's official position at the Bavarian court hasn't earned him a place in history (or Wikipedia), let alone Spera. There isn't enough documentation about her as a courtier to claim she was a Camarera mayor de Palacio: at what time was she at whose court in which position? So establishing her father's precise rank and title may contribute to her notability -- or lack thereof.
 * We have heard that her father held every title but king, but the documentation for the creation, use and/or recognition of a title for him and for her exist, but inconsistently.
 * Unregistered IPs keep appearing to contribute anonymously to or comment on Spera's article. But they seem to have mostly come to defend rather than to correct her bio's errors, to trim its exaggerations or to delete its falsehoods -- which I enumerated above in the "Hoax" section.
 * Because there was so much error, faulty documentation and fabrication in this article for so long, and so much opposition to challenging it, the article deserves very close scrutiny, attention to accuracy and verification of the reliability of sources -- and complete avoidance of synthesis. That just doesn't leave Spera much.
 * Documentability is essential for facts in Wikipedia, but consensus is necessary for those facts to be included.
 * Anons who are sockpuppets or meatpuppets may not contribute to the consensus on the article's content: that's cheating and deserves to be challenged.
 * Since I posted a "Hoax" sign on this article on 22 May 2015 it has gone from an embarrassingly fake and inflated fairy tale about a dynastic "princess" of nowhere, to an increasingly encyclopedic, researched and coherent bio, largely thanks to the efforts of Gerard von Hebel, who is being vilified for his patience, objectivity and persistence. FactStraight (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you FactStraight for your remarks. I agree with what you’re trying to get across here. The issue for the other side in this argument, besides the things expressed in the abuse, which I will ignore, seems to be the titles we have questioned. It is these things I have tried to investigate from time to time in the past weeks and days. I also stumbled upon a peculiar story which may put some new light on the strange and mutually exclusive stories about the death of the grandfather (see under the Florentino heading on this page). About the Baronial issue I recently found some more (but not all) information. Here is a record that says that Alexis, Spera’s brother, was created a “Baron Sarachagoff” by the Russian Emperor at the behest of his mother, Ekaterina. Which makes you wonder why that was necessary if he (according to some here) already was a Freiherr. Of course this elevation didn’t make his sister or other members of the family titled as well, and certainly did not make Spera a born “Freyin”. As  you know I’ve been wondering about the trustworthiness and precision of these “Damenkalender” when it comes to their use of personal names of people. I have doubts about their suitability as a precise and authoritative record on these matters for a number of reasons. The issue of the first names being one of them, but also the use of the term “born Freyin” in this context which seems strange for a lady of non-German descent. Also our Mexican doctor's comment: "Anything published by the Royal House of Buvaria would be done with the authorization and backing of the King of Buvaria and WOULD BE LAW" is nonsense. That's not the way these things work. There is also the question of the uncle. Mariano, brother of Jorge who was a city official in Mannheim, state-censor in the “Vormärz” days of 1848 (which didn’t make him very popular in the liberal Grand Duchy) and Kammerjunker of the Grand Duke. In the GHdA ( Vol. 5 part A p.14 of 1963) is a record of his marriage to Anna, Freiin von Bettendorf in 1850. He is registered there without any titles, but his name is a noble one,  not being printed in italics in the register of names. So we’re dealing with untitled nobility here. However in Vol. 1 part B p.277 of 1954, where his daughter Maria’s marriage in 1871 to Franz, Freiherr Neubronn von Eisenburg is recorded, he is called Baron de S. y U. (Not Freiherr like everybody else in the book mind you, but Baron) while his daughter is now a “Baronesse” (and also here the usual German title Freiin is not used as opposed to most all other entries). This might indicate that somewhere between 1850 and 1871, he was made a Baron, very possibly not by a German sovereign, hence the Baron and Baronesse instead of Freiherr and Freiin. These things would of course have no consequences for Spera’s titulature. Confusingly however there is a second entry for Maria’s marriage in the GHdA. This can be found in Vol. 8 part B p.240 of 1978. Here the titles of Baron for Mariano and Baronesse for Maria are omitted, and they are untitled once more. In the Gothaisches genealogisches Taschenbuch der freiherrlichen Hauser 1891, the marriage is also recorded without any titles for Mariano. This may be due to the titles not being German. Perhaps between 1954 and 1978 there was a change of redactional policy in the GHdA and they chose not to include titles not recognized in Germany anymore. At that time the habit of printing non noble names in italics in the register was also abandoned. The GHdA editors may also have found out that something was amiss with these titles, who knows? There might also (I’m in the realm of speculation now, as you see) be another source for them and that is the court of José Bonaparte, King of Spain which as I found out, was frequented by Florentino (the grandfather) and his wife Maria Micaela . Might Joseph Bonaparte have conferred a title on Florentino, which was later deemed null and void? The marriage of Spera and Friedrich Truchsess is recorded in the Gothaisches Taschenbuch der freiherrlichen Häuser, Vol 30 from the year 1880. There we would be able to see if any titles were deemed appropriate for Spera. Frustratingly I can’t get my hands on a copy of this work that, in my opinion, would settle the matter once and for all. If someone can find it I’d be much obliged. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the 1880 Gothaisches Taschenbuch. But in using the GHdA series, it is always appropriate to use the most recent information included since, like any series, updates and corrections are shown in later versions. Agreed that a local publication published about the Bavarian court, even if the publisher possessed a "by appointment" acknowledgement does not put the authority of the Bavarian government -- still less the King -- behind the publication, and even if it did that does not establish its accuracy. Unlike the Almanac de Gotha, other pre-World War I court publications of this type had no reputation for usage by the international diplomatic corps and were very likely, when reporting on families not included in the Gotha, to publish titles as self-reported and to make no distinction between legal and courtesy titles. GHdA did and does recognize non-German nobility and titles, but in more recent versions it omits courtesy titles: if GHdA can't find a grant or confirmation of a title issued by a sovereign fount of honor, it no longer includes the title, while continuing to show the family as noble. It had also occurred to me that Spera's father was given a Russian barony after her parents' marriage; your source confirms that it was probably the son rather than the father (the latter didn't live long after the wedding). Thus far the evidence substantiates that the Saráchagas were nobility, but that any titles they bore were courtesy titles. None of this appears to apply, however, to the subject of our article, Spera, who still appears to have been a member of the untitled Spanish nobility who married a German baron, while her brother may have received a Russian barony and/or a Spanish marquisate, but left no children to inherit the titles, adoptees obtaining, perhaps, the surname. FactStraight (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FactStraight, Just now I found what I was looking for. Not Vol. 30, but in Vol. 42 of the Gothaisches Genealogisches Taschenbuch der freiherrlichen Häuser 1892 p 920, I found an entry for the marriage between Spera and Friedrich. It says:


 * F r i e d r i c h Freiherr Truchseβ von und zu Wetzhausen geb. 18 Dezember 1825 (des 26. Februar 1851 zu Würzburg † Frhrn C a r l Ferdinand [s. Jahrg. 1870. S. 955] Sohn), Senior des Gesamtgeschlechts, Mitbesitzer des Gutes Birnfeld, Ehrenritter des Johaniterordens, Kön. bayr. Kammerer und Geh. Legationsrat a. D. vormal. Auβerordentl. Gesanter und bevollm. Minister an den Höfen zu St. Petersburg und Stockholm, verm. 15. Juli 1862 mit E s p e r a n z a von Sarachaga y Lobanoff, geb. 7. Juli 1839 [Wetzhausen.]


 * So she did not have the title of Freiin in the German nobility or in the nobility of a German state. That at the least would, beyond any doubt, have been recorded in this work. I found a number of volumes of this work on archive.org. There are two others that mention Esperanza there. All without titles. In Vol. 38 1888 p. 871 she is mentioned as: “E(speranza) geb. von Sarachaga y Lobanoff”. In Vol. 66 1916 p. 851 she is mentioned as: “Esperanza de Sarachaga”. That would put the matter to rest I hope. About the offspring of Alexis and Mariano, I heard that Mariano had only a daughter and that if he had any titles, they died with her. I know nothing about any marriage or offspring of Alexis. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Racism has no place in wikapedia von Hebel aka sock puppeting FactStraight.
Von Hebel, Again, you show you cannot read german, english, or any other language according to sources. Except maybe Spanish. In addition you are not a fons honorum and your vandalism will not be stood for.

Neither you, FactStraight, any editor, or wikapedia itself has the power to verify titles. Last time I checked you were not a FONS HONORUM and the fact that you try to use wikapedia as a place to vet titles and families that you or others may have never heard of is trully disgusting. Wikapedia is a place to write encyclopedia type article for others to read and enjoy. According to wikapedia a third party sources is.

However you disregard this for your one sided agenda. I would be highly doubtful and suspect of anything you may produce from your research. This new assertion that you are going to look for titles in the kingdom of Aragaon is truly bizarre. Since Aragaon, just like ,Bavaria was pre unification germany, was pre unified Spain. It is weird that you all of a sudden have access to Aragon sources BUT you claimed to not know who Cardenas was or the Salazar Insitutte (and then removed their sources with no reason).

The only conclusion is that your bias and agenda towards this family is through the Spanish narrative. Which time and time again has been disproven and nobody really knows the true history of Spain because of the horrors of 1936. You probably see Franco as a Hero, maybe he took in one of your family memebrs or employer so you are forced to hate everything that does not fit the propaganda of 1936 spain and after. Maybe this is where your racist, violent views toward anyone different then you comes from. To furthr support my view of your agenda. No one has asserted to this family originating as Spain. They are clearly written as Basque, sometimes ethnicy as spanish because they are equated with the iberian peninsular or born there. But that has no bearing on their rank or title and basques had a totally separate higherarchy for their families. Pre unification and after. This talk page and article are not governed by the laws of Spain and the French Borons, This talk page has showed titles based on other countries recognition. In Baden they were noble, probably titled, Bavaria they are titled, France they were titled as seen by her brother which was provided previously in another source cast aside because it does not fit your pathetic bias, uneducated, racist, etc. OR your employers narrative.

Eitherway this narrative it no place on wikapedia. Catalan and the Basques have constantly been persecuted by people like you who are unwilling to tell the truth about the historical unification of Spain and Franco's rewriting of it all. Which this article does not deal with, the article only deals with this individual and this family. 200.33.20.102 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think the two editors you name are sockpuppets then the proper place to report that is WP:SPI, with evidence. Do not make that accusation here again unless you've done so. --Neil N  talk to me 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Damenkalender and Gothaische Taschenbücher
The Damenkalender that mentioned someone called “Nadedja”, who could very well be, and probably is, Esperanza, as a born “Freyin” gave me great pause because this particularly German title seems very unlikely for this family, not of German descent. If it had mentioned her as a Countess or a “Baronesse” and if it had had her first name right, I would frankly have believed what it said it more easily. But it has the first name wrong and it gives an unlikely title for her to be born with. Also it is not an authoritative work. WP policy requires that the strongest and most reliable sources be used when they are available. This is especially the case when there is disagreement on a certain issue. Now we have found three entries in an authoritative source on German nobility that all mention her with no born titles. The Gothaisches Genealogisches Taschenbuch der freiherrlichen Häuser does so in Vol. 42 1892 p 920, in Vol. 38 1888 p. 871 and in Vol. 66 1916 p. 851. If Esperanza had been a born Freiin, this work could not have omitted that. Furthermore a “Freiherrliche” status of her and her direct family is also not given in Becke-Klüchtzner, Edmund von der, Stamtafeln des Adels des Grossherzogtums Baden, Baden Baden 1886, p 399, while the “Institut Deutsche Adelsforschung” names the family as of untitled nobility (Familie v.). Also in other works about or by Jorge de Sarachaga, who would have to be made a Freiherr in order for his daughter to be born a Freiin, the title is conspicuously not there, this even though these works were made shortly before or after his death. Also in the “Sentencias del Consejo de Estado”, Esperanza remains untitled. I trust this question can be laid to rest now. We can establish that Esperanza was by marriage a “Freifrau”, born into an old Basque noble family, that her mother was a Russian Princess and that her brother at some point was created a Russian baron, but that is all we can do for her at this point. I would also like to point out that there is no source for the guardianship of Esperanza and Alexis (let alone for Friedrich’s) over her cousins (?) Ricardo and Gloria. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur that these sources are authoritative on Spera's native titulature and status, and should be included in the article: although these findings again make me suspect that she may not be notable based upon confirmed sources about her. But at least what we have on her, once stripped of whatever remains of the unverifiable, the synthesized and the irrelevant, now looks like a fairly accurate and credibly sourced biographic portrait, portions of which certainly deserve to be reflected in Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly the notability is problematic. In the past few weeks I sometimes caught myself thinking that both the father (because he was caught up in the von Haber scandal and got killed in the process) and the brother (who lead a religious-political cabal during the turn of the century) are more notable than she is. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

'''The issue can most definitely not be laid to rest friends! There is still much conversation to be had regarding the titled status of this noble family. It seems friends that you have come at the subject of this article with a strong bias against both the subject and the family.''' I have researched the family in both German and Russian and found some interesting information in addition the quality information already provided. My research predisposes me to believe in the titled status of this noble family, and to come at this from the other angle. Therefore, I feel that we together can reach a middle ground, as we both agree the subject’s family was at least noble.

As I said, you have assumed the family itself is not titled, which is odd, as I have perused this talk page and found a number of sources provided with members of the family listed with titles, all of which have been questioned. Friends, I would like to remind everyone that someone on this page provided the subject’s own brother listed as a Marquis and as Baron if memory serves. Here are some other sources where the subject’s brother is clearly states as “le baron Alexis de Sarachaga”:

This first source the Le souverain caché published in Paris by Paris L'Age d'Homme lists him throughout the book, twice with his baronial title, on pages 162 and 229: Deus ex machina published by Paris L'Age d'Homme listed as Baron Alexis de Sarachaga on page 92: De l'écriture mystique au féminin published by Sainte-Foy, Québec : [Paris] : Presses de l'Université Laval ; L'Harmattan, 2005 which shows Alexis de Sarachaga with his dates of birth and death on page 154:

Friends, I hope you are familiar with the Россійский родословный сборник, which translates as the Russian Genealogical Collection. I have gleaned from the Talk Page that there seems to be an odd need to only look to sources of edited and published familial genealogy, such as the Gotha or GHDA. This source, the Россійский родословный сборник is considered by academics to be the Russian complement as the editor of the work was commissioned by the Czar. In the 1940 publication of the Россійский родословный сборник you find listed the parent’s of the subject on page 11: “Княжна Екатерина Алексѣевна, за барономъ Сарачага”, translated as “Princess Catherine Aleksѣevna for Baron Sarachaga” here: .

Now I have seen quite a bit of nonsensical attacks on sources on the Talk Page from those with little background on the subject friends, so I am going to try and clarify this translation, and provide the context found on page 11. First, I realize the subject’s mother is only listed as Catherine Aleksѣevna and not her family name, this is simple, this section of the Россійский родословный сборник has been dedicated to her family, as would be done with similar sources such as the Gotha. Additionally, the “for” expresses their marriage and that she is listed for her husband the Baron Sarachaga. Now I realize it does not list his first name, this however should not be an issue as friends, you have already come to consensus on the names, dates and genealogy of the parent’s of this articles’ subject. So if her mother is listed name in full as married to a “барономъ Сарачага” (“BaronSarachaga) during the time of their marriage then they are discussing the subject’s father - this is not synthesis, it is simply explaining facts for those unfamiliar with sources such as the Gotha or in this case the Россійский родословный сборник.

Friends, this source in the Россійский родословный сборник which lists the subject’s father as “Baron Sarachga” in addition to the sources provided listing the subject’s brother as Baron put together with the source which lists the subject as born “Freyin” (with her Russian names, as she was born in Russia, and friends Freyin can often be translated as Baron), makes clear that the family is at the least Baronial.

Friends we now have sources for the father and the two children as Baronial. Let’s build consensus around these sources and list her with confidence the subject as born at least Baronial.

If Friends this is beyond you to do because of your bias, I propose a middle ground. I propose that we list the subject: “as recognized born ‘Freyin’ in Buvaria, though we have not found so in Baden”. Also, under her father let us list that her father: “was recognized Baron in Russia”. This is a clear compromise to move us toward consensus regardless of bias. In addition, it uses all of the sources without discarding any due to bias. What say you friends?

Also, as I have found the subject’s mother listed in the Россійский родословный сборник with her full name and family genealogy can we please list her mother as princess, as she is clearly stated as such on page 11: “Княжна Екатерина Алексѣевна” translated as “Princess Catherine Aleksѣevna”.

Thanks friends!189.221.193.22 (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)GERMANOFF
 * That the mother was a Princess, and that the brother was a Baron (he seems to have been created a Russian Baron in his own right at some point) is not in dispute. Your source seems to be some kind of index to the work by Dolgorukov. It seems to point to page 65. It would be nice if we could see what it says there, so we know more about the nature of his designation as Baron in the index. At this point we have conflicting sources of different quality and many questions as to why that is so and as to what the situation exactly is. That calls for caution. But if the man was a baron then he was a baron. Was he created one? When was this done and where and by whom? Why was the son created one if his father was already a Baron? This is still a matter with a lot of puzzling questions. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Friend, I am glad to hear that there is no dispute over the subject’s mother being a Princess or her brother being a Baron, but friend, the point of my post was to the baronial nature of the family.

Friend, regardless of if the son being created a baron, in a book equal to the Gotha published years before the son was born the father was listed as baron in his own right, it matters not from where or how, what matters is that he is. (I will look tomorrow at work for the full source and details of page 65.) This source I have provided friend is equal to the sources you have provided listing the subject’s father as without title. Caution is fine, but we must respect the facts friend. This means we must put into the article that there are multiple sources and some say that the subject was a baroness through her father and some do not. Regardless of your opinions friend it is our job to state what we find in the sources. Your sources are not better than mine, in fact they are equal, so why not state both facts: that in Russia and Buvaria the subject was seen as a baroness, and in Baden she was listed without title? This seems quite cautious to me and prudent. What say you friend? 189.221.193.22 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)GERMANOFF
 * Fact is that, as of now, we have nothing to go by when it comes to the “baronial nature” of the family as a whole. Specially since we know nothing about the origins of the attribution in the Russian source. These people are Germans of Spanish distraction and a Spanish or German origin for this title can safely be excluded. The Gotha would have mentioned a German (or a Spanish) one and there are historically no Spanish baronies associated with Castile and Navarra. So we are left with the Russian situation. A Russian creation should however also be mentioned in the Gotha. Spera’s husband was a Bavarian diplomat in Russia when he met his wife and the Gotha doesn’t mention that his wife is a Russian Baroness? We have contradictory sources it seems. I'm very curious what it says on page 65.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking for page 65 won't help. I've seen it. The numbers simply point to each other and the text on page 11 is not an index. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Friend you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the family and about the Gotha. First, from all I have seen the family never seems to be either German or Spanish, though they do take part in notable history in Germany and Spain, they do not seem to be a German or Spanish family friend. And friend, not every Russian title is listed in the Gotha. Friend, please expand your sources when looking at titled nobility, that is why I use the Russian version of the Gotha, as it has the Russian titles and is more trustworthy. This is because often the Gotha was translating from this source, or missed information in its total. So friend, regardless of page 65, this material would far outweigh the Gotha as we are discussing Russians in Russia, remember the subject was born in Russia.

Sure friend, page 65 will provide more information, maybe an origin, maybe not, but it doesn’t matter for stating fact. Friend for Wikipedia we need to state what the sources say. Because friend, the fact remains regardless of the origins of the title, the tile is the title, both the subject’s father and the subject are listed barons.

Friend let us put that both father and daughter as barons into the article, and have us both research where this baronial status comes from. It is our job friend to research on the talk page, but put fact into the article without point of view. So let’s agree to do that, and deal with origin later.

You may not know this friend, but not all titles have a documented origin. From my research I believe this family is ancient, as ancient as the Lobanoffs, or more so maybe. I might be wrong, but that would be a reason why the origin of the family title would not be listed. It would also mean that if I am right friend you need to remove your perspective of dealing with this family like new nobility would be wrong friend.

Friend, I must say I am extremely confused by your not wanting to work with me toward common ground friend. You say contradicting sources, but the sources are not contradictory, friend. The Gotha just may not have the entire story, which happens when they translate from other countries friend. Contradictory means that they say the opposite, no proof does not mean proof. Let me explain friend, just because the subject has no title in the Gotha does not mean she has not title, it means more likely the Gotha made a mistake, and the Russian source has more information than the Gotha because we are talking about Russia.

Put together the Russian source and the source from Buvaria and we have enough to say it is more than likely the Gotha made a mistake. Or friend, at least enough to list this possibility on the page.

Friend, why are you being so difficult? We have a Russian source that refers to the subject’s father as a baron, regardless of why, and we have a Buvarian source which says the subject was the daughter of a baron, regardless of origin. So this means we have to sources that support each other, corroborate, and both sources are good sources. I must use a term I saw on the talk page, synthesis, friend, it would seem friend, you would be using synthesis by trying to come to one only one conclusion by looking at all the sources. I believe that there are multiple perspectives and they all must be presented here friend. No point of view means that we cannot choose one, no sythesis, we must show the full story friend. We must report fact. And fact is two sources from two different countries say baron, and we must put that in the article. We should also put in that no title is listed in the Gotha or the GHDA, and that the origin of the title is unknown. Because you see friend, this is wikipedia and it is our job to report. So let’s do that ok friend? Let us agree to add this compromise yes?   189.221.193.22 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC) GERMANOFF
 * The problem is that we now have a Gotha entry (more than one) for Esperanza, and the Gotha is the most authoritative work of it’s kind. There is no equivalent. That is the problem. If the Gotha doesn’t regard the native status of this family as equivalent to Baronial, it basically doesn’t matter if some other works does. “Other pre-World War I court publications of this type had no reputation for usage by the international diplomatic corps and were very likely, when reporting on families not included in the Gotha, to publish titles as self-reported and to make no distinction between legal and courtesy titles”, as was mentioned earlier in these discussions. This family seems to have the peculiar property that some members are mentioned with titles in some contexts, while not in others and that some are not mentioned with titles at all. That curious property seems to indicate a lack of clarity (at least in some circles or situations) about the family’s native status. That’s all good and well but that means we will have to go with what the stronger source says about the native status of the family. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I see it, all we can do is add a sentence to the family section of the article that according to this or that Russian genealogist or that in some Russian circles the native status of the family was apparently regarded as equivalent to baronial, but that the Gotha doesn’t recognize them as such. Quoting both sources. That, as of now, is the most we can derive from what we know. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This:
 * "'Esperanza was a member of the Basque noble family de Sarachaga . The family was of old untitled landed nobility, but in some Russian circles they have been regarded as equivalent to Barons . This was however not recognized in the Almanach de Gotha's publications '"
 * is what I have added about the family's native status. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Current issues
As far as I can see the following issues are outstanding. I've done work on most of them in the past two weeks. I have mentioned some of these matters in the past weeks on this talk page. In some cases I made suggestions. On the primary matter of dispute (status of the subject vis a viz the status of her family) I have found that the Gotha, being the most authoritative work on the matter, gives a clear direction. This information (and other things that are mostly unrelated but of interest) can be added to the article, making mention of a different analysis made in other circles and another jurisdiction, and how that analysis relates to the findings of the Gotha. I will shortly add this to the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The initial native status of the family in the nobility.
 * The death of the grandfather (Florentino).
 * The adoption of orphaned nephews / cousins
 * Background information on family members (brother / father / grandmother)
 * Language of the article
 * Structure of the article
 * Notability of the article's subject

Friend, I am very impressed with the changes you have made. I like the way you have handled the title issue. But friend, more importantly I like the background information you have provided. I think this is much improved. I am happy to build consensus with you friend around this version. 189.221.193.22 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)GERMANOFF
 * Fine. I'm glad. Though there might be some issues on other matters remaining. The wardship of Alexeij and Spera for instance and some language or tone things. Some existing sources (already in the article) can be placed a bit differently (for the adoption by her grandparents for instance). Perhaps the text about the Florentino / Maria-Micaela situation viz Von Lasolaye might be expanded upon. That could be difficult. I'll have to think. But I'm glad that this is done for now! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the judicial source the term "tutor de los menores" is used. As far as I can see this is indicative of guardianship and not adoption. I adjusted the text and removed the fact tag and replaced it with the source mentioned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

accent
I removed the accent from the name Saráchaga. It doesn't seem to be there in the sources (even the Spanish language ones). Her brother and other family members don't seem to use it either. I asked an administrator to remove the move protection, which was applied during recent troubles, so that the page can be moved. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)