Talk:Pope Honorius I

message: 5/22/2017 - I have added a citation to Hefele's History of the Councils, Volume 5, which gives a page by page description of all the original letters and council documents.  I think we can remove the "This article needs additional citations for verification" template message.  Are there any objections?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PluniaZ (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why is the main picture for Pope Honorius I the same as that of Pope Symmachus?  Who is this really a picture of?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsepe (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not the same. They are similar, which is unsurprising, considering that they are both mosaics from the same church. But if you look at the faces, they are clearly not the same man, and to prove it, one is holding a building (Honorius is probably the patron of a church) and the other, Symmachus, is holding a book, probably the Gospels. Elizium23 (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Picture the same as Main Picture for Pope Symmachus 

message: A section of the article was added by User:Richard Meredith mentioning a certain group named the "monotheletes". No citation was provided and it looks like a typo of "monothelites". Maybe he could provide further information? --Mechamutoh (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotheletes? 

message: "removing redundancy, possible plagiarism"++
Hello Mechamutoh and all! I agree my form is a work in progress, and I leave too many edits without actually saying what I did in the edit notes(I actually didn't know it was required) , so I completely understand any frustration. The most recent edit has removed a lot of the primary sources on the topic! Furthermore, whilst I didn't plagiarise from the website, you linked: I have never seen it before, why that website is coming up is because I quoted primary sources, which would likely be all over the web. The problem now is that this most recent edit is missing these primary sources! It took me hours to find them from the source material and they were still present in your revision immediately before this one, but why edit it again and remove the first-hand material itself? Finally, why add an opinion from John B Bury? I understand he may have interpreted it as such, but wouldn't the list be exhaustive if we added opinions from every author who spoke on the topic? It makes perfect sense to me to leave the part where it says "That Honorius actually agreed with Sergius on the doctrine of Monothelitism has given rise to much discussion" because that is true: there is a significant body of people that have differing views on the topic. What is frustrating me is simply the removal of the primary sources. Your edit immediately preceding this one was great! But now this current one is too skewed towards Catholic sources, all the other references and primary sources are missing! All I ask is that the primary sources get added back in. Maluhia! Let me know what you think! Take care brother
H.A Elysian (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edit

message: Where is it cited that his father was the consul Petronius? This seems inaccurate. Most families from this period laid false claim to a connection to Ancient Rome aristocracy. Historians dismiss these claims as an attempt to establish legitimacy. Was there even a Roman consul into this time period? 2601:18C:8400:7140:D9B4:37CA:2B8E:79CE (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Father Petronius