Talk:Élisabeth Le Bas

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Élisabeth Le Bas

• ... that French revolutionary Élisabeth Le Bas (pictured) declared that she would never accept a pension from her husband's assassins and signed her statement in blood?

• Source: In English: "When the government... sent her the papers that would grant her a pension, she was furious. In the man's office, she dramatically rejected all official assistance: 'There, with a pin and a quill, I pierced my skin and wrote with my blood... that if a claim had been made for what was due to my husband, I was not asking for help from his assassins. I signed: "The Widow Le Bas." ' "
• Source: In French (from Élisabeth Le Bas's memoirs): "je fus la rage dans le cœur au Comité des inspecteurs ... je pris une plume et un morceau de papier que je trouvai sur le bureau. Là, avec une épingle et la plume, je me fis une large piqûre et j'écrivis avec mon sang au président Rovert que si l'on avait réclamé ce qui était dû à mon mari, je ne demandais pas des secours de ses assassins ; je signai: « Veuve Le Bas ».

• • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The English source Blood Sisters is not available online as far as I know, but I have a physical copy & can provide that context, if needed. As for her memoir in French, that is readable online via Gallica.

Moved to mainspace by Chao Garden (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 01:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Amazing hook and great use of translated sources. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Élisabeth Le Bas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chao Garden (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Joko2468 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

General comments

Taking this up, great work on the article. It's very well written and comprehensive, there's just some issues with sourcing and attribution. I'll do the citations spot check once the sourcing issues have been addressed, since this has the potential to entail significant changes to the references. I went through and added U.S. copyright tags to the illustrations-- Creative Commons licenses are applied to modern works that have been published alongside such a declaration. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• How come her birth name is different between the lede and body? Wouldn't it be better to have this note in the lede, or as a hatnote? The first two efn notes would also need citations. The hatnote would look like this at the top of the article:
  Not to be confused with Éléonore Duplay.
• Hang on, her birth name is Éléonore Élisabeth Duplay and she has sisters who are in turn named Éléonore and Élisabeth?
• She declared that she would never take government assistance from her husband's assassins... This seems very notable, would you be able to quote the text of this declaration? It is non-neutral that assassins is stated in Wikivoice, this ought to be changed or attributed.
• Her memoirs appear to be notable, is there not a secondary source that mentions them being published?

Joko2468 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for updating those images, @Joko2468. I'll be sure to do that myself in the future. Is there anything left to do for those images?

And here are my answers to your question above:

• About her birth name: I only found her full birth name in one primary source (her birth certificate), and I don't think she ever went by the name. That's why I only included it in the birth_name param in her infobox and when mentioning her actual birth. Her birth name, Éléonore Élisabeth Duplay, is confusing because her older sister's name, as you saw, is Éléonore Duplay (though according to a citation in French wiki, that sister's full name was Marie-Éléonore Duplay). I'm not sure what her other 2 sisters' names were. I'm happy to make changes here to avoid confusion, and I'm not against a hatnote instead of the footnotes. Question: do you think it's confusing in context to see her birth name written as "Éléonore Élisabeth Duplay" near her sister's name in the article body, without a footnote to explain? That's my only concern here.
• About signing her name in blood: I included this story in the hook for her DYK nomination with quotes from her memoirs & also a source that translates & explains the quote in English. Both her memoir and the English source use the term "assassins". I have updated the article to be clear that "assassins" is a quote.
• About her memoirs being published: The Yalom (1995) book Blood Sisters says the following: "The circumstances under which I first discovered the memoirs of Élisabeth Duplay Le Bas are indicative of the cavalier treatment traditionally accorded such texts." and then she describes how she found the memoirs published in Stéfane-Pol's 1901 book. So to answer your question, I don't think her memoirs were published officially until 1901, though they were mined for info about her husband for decades beforehand. I have updated the line about her memoirs being published to include more info & a citation from Yalom's book.

By the way, I have physical copies of Yalom (1995) Blood Sisters and Popkin (2019) A New World Begins. Every other source is available online. If you want to spot-check Yalom or Popkin's citations, I don't mind helping you do that via email, if that's appropriate. Just let me know! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 04:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Well done with this, just regarding the birth name:

• It's fine to keep the efn note in the body and have the hatnote at the top of the article, you just need a citation supporting that it's her sister. I appreciate it's clarifying her maiden name but as it's currently framed this sentence states an inaccuracy. If you have material supporting that she went by Élisabeth Duplay rather than her full birth name then this can be added in a note next to it.

Thanks, I'll ask you for quotations from sources I can't get access to (it's fine just to do this on the talk page, it makes my review more accountable). I'll start the spot check once the final issues on sourcing have been addressed. Pinging @Chao Garden. Joko2468 (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Good point - I just updated the page to include the hatnote and also updated the efn note to be more clear, with a citation. I double-checked Hamel (1867), p. 289 and he names both Duplay sisters together (which I've used to support the statement that she went by "Élisabeth," versus her sister who went by "Éléonore"): Restaient donc, quand Maximilien vint s'installer dans la maison de Duplay, Éléonore, qui était l'aînée; Victoire, qui ne fut jamais mariée, et Elisabeth, la plus jeune des filles, celle qui époușa Le Bas. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 07:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice well done, although her birth name in the lede is still inaccurate-- it should say what's on her birth certificate. Joko2468 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you think about Élisabeth Le Bas, née Éléonore Élisabeth Duplay and also known as Élisabeth Duplay (16 August 1772 – 4 April 1859)... or something similar for the lede? Too much? Maybe I'm overthinking this. Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 08:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

What you have there is fine but if you have a source referring to her as "Élisabeth Duplay" then this could be placed in a note next to her birth name--I think the reader would infer from her married name that she went by Élisabeth. You could just write "Known as Élisabeth Duplay" in the note, also gives the impression that she's sometimes referred to by her birth name which as you said there isn't a known instance of. This doesn't preclude a GA pass, feel free to do as you wish as long as her birth name is correct. Joko2468 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Use of memoirs as a reliable source

Material derived from primary sources, especially those written by the subject (see WP:SELFSOURCE and the second paragraph of Primary source), usually needs to be descriptive and attributed as such. In most cases they shouldn't be used for an inferred statement of fact. You've done this well when you start with In her memoirs..., it just needs to be consistent. I appreciate this might be a pain in the backside so I've identified the problemed areas. I judged her writings on sexual assault to constitute exceptional claims per WP:SELFSOURCE and thus requiring attribution, but this is a sensitive judgement and if you'd like a third opinion on that then feel free to send out for one.

• Information from refs 8 (that it was written after his death constitutes cause to doubt its reliability), 16 (maybe okay?), 39, 41 (this also doesn't need to be cited twice, same with the quote from 35), and 42 needs to be properly attributed or removed. I'm happy with 11 and 19 per WP:SELFSOURCE. 35 and 33 (regarding the prisons) can be removed. Ideally it would be clearer what material is cited to ref 14-- it seems as though Danton then tried to grab her... is inferred as fact rather than being attributed. Ref 33 says she was a mother of five weeks not six, though you should go with what the secondary source says.

Joko2468 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Joko2468, that absolutely makes sense. I've made a number of changes now. Using this version as a reference and going through the citations you mentioned...

• #8 (walks & stories with Robespierre) has been removed & now only references Hamel 1891, pp. 296–297. (Note that I also fixed this citation, which was pointing to the wrong page.)
• #16 ("confessed their love") has been removed in favor of less rosy language & a citation from Blood Sisters.
• #39 (footnote about Talaru prison?) now reads: However, Élisabeth's account of her stay at "Talarue" does not match that description & added an additional citation for Yalom. Does this work?
• #35 (blockquote about sister) & #41 (blockquote about monsters) have been removed, and the lines leading up to these blockquotes are still cited
• For #14 (about Danton sexually assaulted her), here's the part of her memoir that describes the incident: Il s'approcha de moi, voulut me prendre la taille et m'embrasser. Je le repoussai avec force, quoique bien faible encore. And then, when she told her host/friend, she said: cet homme m'avait tenu des propos affreux, tels que je n'en avais jamais entendus. (see page 108) In Yalom's book, she quotes Élisabeth with the translation (page 119): He approached, wanted to put his arm about my waste and kiss me. I pushed him away with force, followed by: I told her that man had made vile propositions to me. I would like to keep this incident in the article. Maybe I should include a direct quote?
• #33 (arrested with her baby) yes you are right, technically she says she was a mother for 5 weeks at that point: J'étais mère de cinq semaines (here). I had recently changed this to 6 weeks because I was getting hung up on the time between the baby's birth and their arrest). The line has been fixed now. By the way, is this okay to leave as a reference to her memoir?

Of the citations mentioned above, #14 (Danton), #33 (arrested with her baby), and #39 (footnote about Talaru prison) are the three that I have questions about. How would you like for me to approach those? Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 05:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

By the way, while looking at the Hamel books, I noticed that the main chapters on Le Bas are very similar, if not identical. I guess he used the same chapter in both books. I'm going to double-check this and try to consolidate my usage of one book or the other so that there's less jumping around between the two. The diff shouldn't be too difficult to read (and I'll explain my changes, if I make any). Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 05:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Great job on all of this, just a few more things to address.

• Apologies I mistakenly wrote 8 when I meant 5 and 6, Élisabeth loved Robespierre like a brother and said he was kind to her should probably be moved down towards the end of the article or removed. Per WP:SELFSOURCE (4), it isn't a reliable source for that stage of their relationship given that it's been written after Robespierre's death. However, it is reliable as a source for how Élisabeth viewed and felt about her relationship with Robespierre when she was writing her memoirs, though this needs to be attributed intext to her memoirs and not stated in Wikivoice.
• For ref 14, I think it would be best to just use Yalom (1995) for this and quote her on the incident as they have (no need for blockquotes). It can be a little frustrating to lose detail for the sake of reliability, but in my experience that's usually led me to introduce inaccuracies or bias into an article.
• Regarding ref 39, well done with the efn note but any primary source material on her prison stay below needs to be clarified as coming from her memoirs. How much of this is from Yalom (1995)? She understandably harbours resentment against the regime and without a secondary source validating all such material there's reason to doubt its reliability as a source.
• Yes, for ref 33 (her arrest) her memoirs are a reliable source because they're describing an event she personally experienced without it being an exceptional claim or there being cause to doubt its reliability (per the WP:SELFSOURCE criteria).
• Élisabeth was grateful to her sister Éléonore... needs to be attributed intext to her memoirs, at the moment I think it gives the reader the impression that this was written in the immediate aftermath. i.e., "In her memoirs, Élisabeth expressed gratitude towards her sister Éléonore..."

Joko2468 (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I've addressed all of your feedback above with my updates:

• Moved the Elisabeth loved Robespierre like a brother... part to the end & clarified it was from her memoirs.
• For the Danton incident: I rewrote the paragraph and relied on Yalom for details. I also included a quote from Yalom's translation of Èlisabeth's words.
• For ref 39 / imprisonment paragraph: I also removed the overreliance on the memoir and used info from Yalom. Everything previously in that paragraph was in both the memoir and Yalom, except for the part about the cell being "difficult to breathe" -- technically Yalom doesn't cover that part, though she does translate Élisabeth's lines where she says: I was above the stables; there were stinking odors. What do you think about the rewording of this paragraph?
• For the part of about her sister & being grateful: I added clarification that she wrote that in her memoir.

Let me know if I missed anything here! Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 09:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Excellent thank you, I'll start the citations spot check. Joko2468 (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Randomised spot check of citations

2, 6, 36, 45, 23

• 2: this is good, but her father's name and occupation and her mother's name still needs to be supported
• 36: this is supported-- I would maybe have included a sentence on the appeal she wrote to the Committee of Public Safety (it appears reliably researched) but this obviously won't preclude a pass

Joko2468 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Tagging @Chao Garden, just ref 2 left. Joko2468 (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Oops, thank you @Joko2468! Added two citations to support her parents' names + father's occupation. Also thank you for the suggestion, I added those extra details about her appeal as well, though it appears to have been an appeal to "le Comité de sûreté générale" (the Committee of General Security). Chao Garden 🌱 (hi) 15:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, well deserved pass. Joko2468 (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chat GPT detected

The article uses ‘her’ and ‘she’ so many times in regular sequences, and most likely it is written by ChatGPT. Good job ChatGPT. RevivedCicero (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

As I wrote on RevivedCicero's talk page: I absolutely did not use ChatGPT to write this article. Anyone can see from the article history that I researched and expanded this article throughout this month. It has gone through multiple revisions, including for the recent GA review. The article took a lot of hard work, and I did it myself. So, I find this accusation offensive and against WP:CIV, and I expressed this to RevivedCicero. He has since apologized in his recent comment on this Talk page here, which I appreciate. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 18:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@RevivedCicero as the reviewer of this article I can confirm that it was most definitely not written by ChatGPT-- you can see from the GA review above that it's intimately grounded in the sources. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Joko2468 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

My Previous Comment Regarding ChatGPT

Hey, it looks like my previous comment regarding the use of ChapGPT has not been received well by the author of the article @Chao Garden:, so in effort of collaboration I retreive my previous comment. Thank you! RevivedCicero (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

One More Thing Regarding My Previous Comment

Hey, I used the word “retreive”, and I meant retract. I retract my previous comment regarding the use of ChatGPT, and I apologize to @Chao Garden: for bringing it up. Thank you! RevivedCicero (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)