Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've edited down much of the original state of the article, but I'm concerned at how non-neutral much of this was. Most of it, especially the section for High School Confidential was nothing but an Iversen love-fest. A few of the reviews weren't nearly as positive as they were claimed to be in the original edits of the sections and many are only available through Iversen's site, which makes them unusable. Why? Because we have no way of knowing if they've been edited down, paraphrased, or otherwise altered from their original state. The same thing goes for the links to Amazon. We don't know what was edited, as they frequently paraphrase their reviews or otherwise edit them. Even when they don't, it's common for the publisher or author to edit them to try to make everything look as good as possible. Not everyone does this, but it's common enough to where we can't use the site as a source. As far as the star rating of the customer reviews, we can't use those as sources because they're not only easy to manipulate, but they're by "average Joes and Janes" and aren't considered to be a RS. I removed some of the primary sources and trivial sources such as the S&S pages and the IMDb links. They're largely unnecessary and aren't seen as reliable sources that show notability. I left the one link to Iversen's page since that's really the only link that we have that actually discusses him. Most of the other links are about the books and the controversy that surrounds them. I'm going to keep this one on my watch list. It's been a while since the IP that added the non-NPOV info edited, but I'm concerned about this being used as a form of promotion for Iversen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)10:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, same thought. This is wildly partial and inaccurate in its descriptions of his book and the methodology behind it. It reads as something that is preemptively refuting criticism rather than acknowledging and stating the real, valid, and embarrassing controversies behind the book. Someone who isn’t Jeremy Iverson needs to redo this page. ~2026-21081-72 (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
