This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
FactStraight ( talk) 16:39, 24 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)
"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)
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)
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 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 ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
If you cannot come to a consensus amongst you please consider the other options laid out at WP:DRR. -- NeilN 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. -- NeilN talk to me 20:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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
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)
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.<Privatdr.> 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: [6] 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: [7]
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)
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 [10] 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 [11] 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)
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)
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)
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 [15].
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)
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 [16]. 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 [17], while the “Institut Deutsche Adelsforschung” [18] 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)
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: [19] Deus ex machina published by Paris L'Age d'Homme listed as Baron Alexis de Sarachaga on page 92: [20] 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: [21]
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: [22].
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
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
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
"Esperanza was a member of the Basque noble family de Sarachaga [3]. The family was of old untitled landed nobility, but in some Russian circles they have been regarded as equivalent to Barons [4]. This was however not recognized in the Almanach de Gotha's publications [5]"
References
eulenburg-hertefeld
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
FactStraight ( talk) 16:39, 24 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)
"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)
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)
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 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 ( /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
If you cannot come to a consensus amongst you please consider the other options laid out at WP:DRR. -- NeilN 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. -- NeilN talk to me 20:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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
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)
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.<Privatdr.> 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: [6] 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: [7]
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)
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 [10] 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 [11] 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)
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)
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)
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 [15].
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)
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 [16]. 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 [17], while the “Institut Deutsche Adelsforschung” [18] 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)
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: [19] Deus ex machina published by Paris L'Age d'Homme listed as Baron Alexis de Sarachaga on page 92: [20] 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: [21]
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: [22].
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
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
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
"Esperanza was a member of the Basque noble family de Sarachaga [3]. The family was of old untitled landed nobility, but in some Russian circles they have been regarded as equivalent to Barons [4]. This was however not recognized in the Almanach de Gotha's publications [5]"
References
eulenburg-hertefeld
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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
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)