Talk:Lambeth Articles

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lambeth Articles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070202110017/http://www.apuritansmind.com:80/Creeds/LambethArticles.htm to http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/LambethArticles.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090107150855/http://martyrologist.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/28380.html to http://martyrologist.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/28380.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930030730/http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd04608.htm to http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd04608.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality of Queen's Reaction section

Hi all, I've flagged the Queen's Reaction section for lack of neutrality. It reads in a way that seems to judge the actions/reactions of Queen Elizabeth I to the Articles in question. I'd also suggest we don't use phrases such as 'she was very angry'. I also noted the lack of sources. Thanks Shivermetim (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have done some work on the article to make it better. I've made that paragraph invisible for now until I can verify it with sources. Ltwin (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)