Talk:Esperanza de Sarachaga

Hoax

What's amazing and appalling about this article is the number of editors and edits made since it was fabricated on English Wikipedia in July 2012, and the fact that not only does it continue to exist, un-noticied and un-critiqued, but that it's obvious the original prankster periodically returns, adds significantly to the fairy tale, creates or misuses sources for citations, and until now has neither been caught nor censured. Embarrassing! Delete...Belatedly...Swiftly. FactStraight (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This fragment: "She was also very loyal to friends. Philipp zu Eulenburg-Hertefeld relays that Esperanza found out the plot to depose King Ludwig II of Bavaria and confronted the conspirators with an umbrella at the entrance to Schloss Hohenschuangau, giving her enough time to alert the King and military."

is verifiable. I happen to own the book by Prince Eulenburg mentioned in the source. And it's all there, including the name of the lady in question and a story on her background, details of which can be found in the article as well. All on page 60 of the book. The link provided in the article links to a page with the same text I have here in Eulenburg's book. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

So you believe that she was a Spanish and Russian princess? And that she married a German baron "dynastically"? But that their daughter married a Belgian "Baron Greindl" (raised to "Count Greindl") in 1902? Morganatically? And that these Greindl morganauts were de-morganatized in 2011 and as a consequence now bear their maternal grandmother's countly title??? I don't dispute that someone known as "Esperanza Truchseß von Wetzhausen née Saràchaga" existed, as described on p. 600 of Gottfried Ritter von Böhm's 1922 book, "Ludwig II König von Bayern: sein Leben und seine Zeit"" That's why I cleaned up and kept that citation where it was in the Ludwig II article. Since that is, however, insufficient to establish the subject's current notability, the article should be deleted. Or at the very least pared down to what actual reliable sources can be confirmed to state about her (i.e., per Böhm, "...commissioners were attacked by the 47-year-old local baroness Spera von Truchseß...Esperanza Truchsess von Wetzhausen née von Sarachaga, of Spanish descent, born Petersburg 1839, married 1862 Friedrich Truchsess von Wetzhausen (1825-94); died after 1909... loyal to the king, who flailed at the men with her umbrella and then rushed to the king’s apartments to identify the conspirators.")

The other information we are told about her and her "princely" family is so incredible and extended as to cast the value and accuracy of all else in the article about her into doubt. To wit:

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

FactStraight (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't indicated what I do or don't believe FactStraight, just what I found out about the fragment mentioned. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

In addition most ancient noble families assumed a courtesy title, such as Prince, to distinguish them from the patent nobilty. This seems to be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2590:FD30:553B:C2F0:9FF4:53C8 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "...so regardless of if she was a spanish princess, which is never never asserted to in this article"? The article begins with and endlessly repeats references to her as a princess. How does being a maid of honour at the Russian Imperial court, even if true (and many women who held that honorary position possessed -- and claimed -- no title whatsoever, however high may have been their family's social standing), in any way prove, justify or excuse all of the other claimed noble and royal attributions in this article? Nor is it true that "most ancient noble families assumed a courtesy title, such as Prince, to distinguish them from the patent nobility": that assertion would only apply -- if we are not just talking about peacockery that would have been subjected to immediate dismissal and derision at any court! -- to France of the ancien régime, and only to so few families that they and their titres de courtoisie are well-known. That's what makes the claim for this woman and/or her descendants to have inherited, held, passed on and appointed(!) the title of "Prince/ss de Saráchaga" so flagrant and absurd! No such practice was common in nor accepted at the courts of monarchist Spain or Russia. This is fraud, beginning to end. FactStraight (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the circumstances surrounding this article and given the serious doubts that have been raised, the least that needs to happen is that this article be purged of all outlandish and unverifiable material. Sometimes we don't have to be that strict with articles that contain some unsourced statements, even ones that make us wonder, but this shouldn't be one of them. The more outlandish statements in this article need to be supported by obvious reliable sources, that explicitly say what they are purported to say (preferably translated in English for verification), quoting chapter and verse! We'll see what's left of this story when that's done. I'm going to make a beginning with that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a good beginning with the purge I think. Removing the more outlandish things but retaining the rest. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a good beginning. There's still a lot more that needs editing or deletion: redundancies, un-verified assertions (how do we know her mother was a daughter of Prince Alexei Lobanov Rostovky? The Lobanovs were never listed in the Almanach de Gotha), memoir-style and trivia. But let's give the original editor who put this stuff in, and who is probably a relative or of Basque background, a chance to clean it up and salvage what can honestly be attributed to verifiable sources before reducing it further. Thanks for all that effort. FactStraight (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Although the Lobanovs never made it into the Almanach, I have found their genealogical entry, complete back to ancestor Prince Loban Rostovsky, fl. 1495, in my 1961 copy of the Fürstlichen Häuser of the Genealogische Handbuch des Adels: Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky is included on page 468 as Prince (Fürst) Alexei (1824-1896). He belonged to the seniormost branch, now extinct, of the family, in which he was the fourth of five children of Prince Boris Aleksandrovich (1794-1863) by his wife, Olympiada Borodin (1800-1874). The Handbuch says of Prince Alexei, "buried Moscow, properties in the Ostrogojsky District, Imperial Russian Privy Councillor, Senator, Ambassador in Vienna and Foreign Minister, Genealogist" ([ ]Moskau, begütert im Bez. Ostrogojsk, Kaiserliche, russische Wirklicher Geheimer Rat, Senateur, Botschafter in Wien und Minister der Auswärtigen, Genealoge). So this largely matches our article on him. But he never married and died without children. We are told in Esperanza's article more about Prince Alexei's putative relatives, "<Esperanza's alleged grandmother>...Countess Rucheleff/Countess Kusheleva, Alexandra Grigorievna.<Esperanza's alleged mother> Ekatarina was granddaughter of Princess Ekaterina Alexandrovna Lobanova-Rostovskaya, born Princess Kurakina (1735–1802), wife of Prince Ivan Ivanovich Lobanov-Rostovsky". There are a number of other Prince Alexei's among the Rostovskys, but the details, dates & bios don't match any of this. Alexei's paternal aunt-in-law (not wife) was Countess Alexandra Grigorovna Kuschelova (1796-1848), wife of Prince Alexei Lobanov-Rostovsky, eldest brother of Alexei's father. The "Princess Ekaterina" referred to in Esperanza's article is correctly described -- except that she was Alexei's great-grandmother, not his mother, and since Alexei had no children, that great-grandmother could not have been the namesake of Esperanza's alleged Princess Rostovsky mother. The fact that the maiden names and dates of Rostovsky in-laws is given correctly in Esperanza's article further suggests that the inaccuracies in the article are deliberate distortions done by someone who had access to the correct data and relationships. Again, this throws into doubt all the genealogy about Esperanza that cannot be connected to her by independent reliable sources -- which means, so far as I can tell -- everyone but her husband. We have no idea who her parents were, from whom she got the name Saráchaga, or what her fortune was -- whatever Philipp, Prince zu Eulenburg or others believed about her origin or circumstances. FactStraight (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Call for protection for this article and banning of the editor who maliciously calls article a hoax and started a flame war

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

"Hoax" Status Seems to Be Due to Editors with Agendas...

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

Here's my thesis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe it is time to move past the impasse of a “hoax” and work together to rebuild this person’s page back up to be a proud testament to her, her family, and my country’s heritage. Stop with the agenda Gerard von Hebel, FactStraight and DrKiernan, stop blocking the removal of the label of hoax and support us in engaging in a true academic effort to provide fact on a page that is now bereft of it due to your callous disregard for fact. Thank you in advance for stepping aside and letting us do what is right.