Talk:Charlotte Laws

Anti - revenge porn activism
She has another branch of notoriety, namely fighting revenge-porn purveyor Hunter Moore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.252.74 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is her daughter's father?

Not her husband? No, she has said in interviews that her husband is Kayla's stepfather.

It is unclear who spawned that girl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.119.149 (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Lobbying for Trump
Ms Laws seems to be trying to rebrand herself lately as a pro-Trump activist. She's been seen several times over the last few weeks on BBC World News (perhaps on other networks too?), getting interviewed and aggressively pushing for Donald Trump to be seen as an honest and plain-speaking man fighting the PC establishment and the (in her view) hypocritical liberal old maids' club. Speaks as if she personally knows him well, which wouldn't be very far-fetched considering her record as a professional gatecrasher and LA socialite, but it might also indicate that she's actually on the payroll of the Donald Trump Organization. We'll have to see if she develops some closer ties with his upcoming outfit. Strausszek (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charlotte Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150702194525/http://gawker.com:80/emergency-delivery-for-g-clooney-my-life-as-an-a-list-1704228067? to http://gawker.com/emergency-delivery-for-g-clooney-my-life-as-an-a-list-1704228067

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Animal Rights Advocate
Laws should remain on the list of animal advocates because she is known for her AR activism and has spoken many times at the annual AR conference. She could also probably be listed under animal rights scholars because she authored a scholarly animal rights book and contributed to four scholarly animal rights anthologies. She has a doctoral degree which was focused on philosophy and AR study. What do all of you think about adding he to the list of scholars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.87.50 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved from article - Party crashing
"Laws was voted the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world, beating Bill Murray, Queen Elizabeth II, Serena Williams, Lady Gaga, and the Salahis. She says gate crashing began as a hobby when she was a teenager but later became a creative way to get face time with business leaders, politicians, and A-list celebrities in order to lobby for legislation, get exclusive interviews, and obtain business partners. She has crashed the Secret Service four times. Laws’ 1988 how-to book, Meet the Stars, is believed to be the first party crashing book ever written. Laws also includes some of her gatecrashing techniques in her memoirs Rebel in High Heels (2015) and Undercover Debutante (2019)."

I thought there might be something salvageable here, but after looking closely at the references it appears to be just self-promotion on her part, echoed in poor refs and brief mentions of her book. --Hipal (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article history further, I'm seeing multiple SPA accounts involved with it, with some likely sockpuppetry. This is a lot worse than the last time I looked, more likely COI/UPE editing. --Hipal (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't care if this section stays in the article on Laws or the article on party crashing itself, nor if the article on Laws doesn't get merged or deleted. In fact the entire thing could be deleted, that's all the same to me. But if SOME article ends up still containing a line about Laws being "voted the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world, beating Bill Murray, Queen Elizabeth II, Serena Williams, Lady Gaga, and the Salahis", please do not have its only source for this "vote" being a link to an INTERVIEW on ReviewFix.com with Laws wherein she just repeats the claim that she was "voted that", without saying by who, what, where, when, or why. Just please take 10 seconds to skim the ReviewFix.com interview, the 4th question, and you will see the point they discuss it is when they link to an article on TheRichest.com (to a page which was, perhaps, once present there at that now-defunct link, but has currently been moved to a different URL on the same website, TheRichest.com, with the exact same content ("World's 15 Most Notorious Party Crashers"), at this url. You will see THIS is the article that actually DID THE VOTE about who was "the most notorious party crasher in the world", the vote Laws (and Wikipedia) are citing here. THAT is the source for that claim. TheRichest.com article "World's 15 Most Notorious Party Crashers". That should be the first, last, and only source for this claim.


 * All the currently given citation just does is repeat the exact same information with no further statement of a source, except a link to the actual source, using a URL that is now 404'd, even though we know that linked listicle still exists, we know the current correct URL for a certainty (again, it's right here, World's 15 Most Notorious Party Crashers, TheRichest.com, March 3, 2015 and we know we can still access it. That should be the one and only only acceptable citation for that line in Laws' article that "Laws was voted the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world, beating Bill Murray, Queen Elizabeth II, Serena Williams, Lady Gaga, and the Salahis." There is no possible need to cite any other source than the actual "list" itself, especially not instead opting to link a random interview with the subject of the article herself where she claims this about herself, offers no source, explanation, or even a name of whom or what person, publication, system, body, blog, platform or media entity had her "listed as the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world". Again, it provides a link to the ACTUAL source, which is currently 404'd, unless you GOOGLE it and find that the actual source, World's 15 Most Notorious Party Crashers, TheRichest.com, March 3, 2015, is still there on TheRichest.com.


 * Using ReviewFix.com instead of TheRichest.com makes no sense in this context. They are both at least equally as reliable sources, especially if it's to source the claim "Did TheRichest.com call Charlotte Laws 'the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world'?" Because, in fact, what other source in the world could possibly be used for this? Except this interview with Laws on ReviewFix where once again, she doesn't say by WHOM or WHAT she was "listed as the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world", and the only clue, the link, is currently 404'd. ReviewFix is the only possible source that could be reliable on this extremely particular matter, and upon the most cursory of investigation (seriously, this took me about 10 seconds to notice and it's taking about 5 months to get anyone else to understand it and stop re-breaking it whenever I fix it.


 * Sorry for ranting but I feel like I'm taking amnesia pills. I've made this very obvious edit multiple times, even explaining exactly why I was doing it in my edit description, and yet it still keeps being reverted back with no explanation, except for one edit saying TheRichest.com is "unreliable". TheRichest.com IS THE SOURCE FOR ReviewFix. ReviewFix as a "source" is literally just saying "hey let's link to TheRichest.com to determine the validity of the claim." And then also getting the URL wrong and never correcting it. This is like saying the official Olympics website is an "unreliable" source about whether an athlete won a gold medal, but a "reliable" source is a tweet of that athlete saying "hey i won a gold medal one time in something", with a bit.ly link that goes to a 404'd page on the Olympics website. But then when I try to change it, it keeps getting deleted, saying "Olympics.com is an unreliable source. Please stick to tweets from athletes about themselves for verifying facts about who has Olympic medals in what things."


 * ReviewFix as a "source" is not a source at all. If TheRichest.com is not a reliable source, even though a) it is the actual ONLY SOURCE CITED BY TheRichest.com's interview to prove the claim of a "world's most notorious party crasher" distinction even existing, let alone that it went to Charlotte Laws, and in fact the entire "vote" and "world's most" distinction being discussed here is, in its original one and only source, that TheRichest.com article... then I have no idea how you people define reliability, source, citations, claims, or even a link that this point. User:Hipal can you please address some of this before you continue to inexplicably and repeatedly delete my, to my correct and appropriate edits? I know you're not sure if any of this section or these citations should be kept at all, and sure, maybe most of it is self-promotion. But the "World's 15 Most Notorious Party Crashers" articles on TheRichest.com was, in fact, the least self-promotional of the lot, which hardly can be said the same for the ReviewFix article which is just an interview with Charlotte Laws herself where she pulls out that "listed as the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world" claim relatively unprompted without even explaining who or what said that about her, if anyone. So I'm not sure why you kept removing my much more reliable, much-less-self-promotional [for Laws], TheRichest.com source, then marking it as unreliable, and repeatedly replacing it with the previous unreliable, broken-link-having, unclear, and definitely self-explanatory ReviewFix interview. Don't mean to sound upset. Just please help me understand. VolatileChemical (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. TheRichest is not reliable, so it's not useful for biographical information which requires high-quality sources only. --Hipal (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)