User talk:186.29.96.241

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 186.29.96.241, has made edits to Journal of Schenkerian Studies that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider [ getting a username] to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:
 * Help contents – the main help page.
 * Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ Joshua Clement Broyles here.

The peer review claim should be removed from the article on the basis that it constitutes original research, considering that Wikipedia is now the closest thing to a cited original source for the claim.

UNT's pertinent link no longer shows the claim that the article is peer reviewed, UNT's own review panel concluded that Volume 12 had not been peer reviewed, as consistent with Jackson's own public statement on the matter with his attorney in attendance after 01:06:00 in this Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BYEmzYAMok&t=3951s. And if you check the other 11 volumes you will also find no means offered in order to conclude the application of peer review.

The article's claim that the journal is peer reviewed is a claim without any evidentiary basis, and effectively comes down at this point to Wikipedia citing itself.

I wish to challenge the article's neutrality, and I wish to challenge your neutrality in supporting a baseless claim of peer review.

I'm not really interested in becoming a Wikipedian just to help you clean up your shit.

Clean up your own shit.

- Joshua Clement Broyles

ÑÑÑ