Talk:Laurent de Gourcuff

Risk of citogenesis
Since the French page (which got the WMF successfully sued) was created in October 2021, any source published after that time should be scrutinized very closely, to prevent the risk of citogenesis.

This is not a "Google for 30 seconds -> find source -> if reliable, add", type of article. It's more of a "pretend you're a well-paid private investigator, and you have to painstakingly corroborate every source" type of article. DFlhb (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Good point. However, what I found worthy of adding rests on his own admission for one negative that was remarked on off-wiki (the exam cheating) and for the info on his career, draws a lot on sources from 2017 and even earlier. There was a flurry of coverage in 2022, but it includes the likes of Le Monde and has a quite different emphasis from the French article as reflected in the translatese version that was draftified here, which is not only heavily negative, it drops names (of restaurants and clubs but also of people) rather than explain things like the "eatertainment" (a theme in multiple sources, but the term is only used in one) and his personal preference for restaurants to have a stunning view (again, multiple sources). Compare also the coverage of the rivalry with Patou. I omitted his reaction to a cyber attack as trivia. And note the negativity of one L'Obs article that I cite just for a date, compared to the majority of the coverage. There are probably numerous sources I failed to find; if you think the emphasis is off in any way, or the facts based on shaky ground, please either amend it or raise the issue, preferably at the noticeboard. That's why I'm asking for advice/discussion there, although I admit that lazy journalism based on Wikipedia didn't occur to me as a high possibility given the wide range of publications I found covering him, and the differences in their angles of approach. (Also: Accor must have done due diligence at each stage of their investment, so the list of properties on the website and mentioned in coverage based on their press releases is presumably correct; and as a litigant, he's presumably himself ensured that any defamatory press articles are removed?) Yngvadottir (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I posted the above before checking the draft's current state (arguably I should have checked it first). It looks fine now, and the sources are reliable. DFlhb (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)