Codex Vaticanus Wikipedia - MISTAKE. How to edit?

Hi guys. I found a mistake on the Codex Vaticanus wiki page but I don’t know how to edit it - I’m sort of bad with technology :slight_smile:

Anyone can help correct it?

In Non-included verses it says: John 7:53-8:12. But it should be: John 7:53-8:11 because John 8:12 is clearly in the Codex Vaticanus. Here is a screenshot of John 8:12 in the Codex Vaticanus:

Here is a link to John 8:12 in the Codex Vaticanus :

I would like it to be changed because it can confuse a lot of people. Thank you!

Update: I think I was able to change it on Wikipedia but I’m not sure if my edit will stay for long (not sure how it works)

1 Like

The clause right after your edit is a citation/reference: “{{r|na26|pp=273–274}}”, which was already present. If you believe that that reference (“Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece”) already supports your contention that 8:12 is in the Codex Vaticanus, then there’s nothing left for you to do.

On the other hand, if you think it’s needed, or if you feel like it, you can add another reference to a published bible or secondary source that supports your claim. You can look elsewhere in the page for the way published sources are referenced/cited.

I don’t know, but it may be that your favorite bible or your favorite reference is already cited on that page, so you can add a similar citation.

“{{r|na26|pp=273–274}}” means we are citing a reference explicitly tagged “na26” on this wiki page in particular. For the UBS bible they seem to use “ubs3” as their tag, so if you thought it might strengthen your claim, you could add a citation like so, as they did in numerous places on that page: {{r|ubs3|p=164}}. You need to customize the page number.

The URL you provided (at postimg.cc) cannot be a citation because it is “user-generated content” and wiki citation rules don’t allow citations to user-generated content. (Though I trust you that that image is useful.) Wikipedia’s rules say you have to cite a published book, journal or newspaper.

1 Like

Thank you for such a detailed response !

1 Like