To editor PiCo: I made an edit noting that some scholars aren't convinced of the several editions of John. This was backed by a citation, but PiCo, you've reverted on the basis that I "misused" my source. This was my edit;
Some scholars have rejected this conclusion and have argued for the literary unity of John. (ref: Kellum, L. Scott, and Leonard Scott Kellum. The unity of the Farewell Discourse: The literary integrity of John 13:31-16:33. Vol. 256. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2004.)
I'm wondering where the source misuse actually plays in. I'd appreciate an explanation. Is it the lack of page numbers? Wallingfordtoday ( talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
To editor PiCo: I made an edit noting that some scholars aren't convinced of the several editions of John. This was backed by a citation, but PiCo, you've reverted on the basis that I "misused" my source. This was my edit;
Some scholars have rejected this conclusion and have argued for the literary unity of John. (ref: Kellum, L. Scott, and Leonard Scott Kellum. The unity of the Farewell Discourse: The literary integrity of John 13:31-16:33. Vol. 256. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2004.)
I'm wondering where the source misuse actually plays in. I'd appreciate an explanation. Is it the lack of page numbers? Wallingfordtoday ( talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)