Talk:Rona Ambrose

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Afarm2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Does anyone know what Rona's ethnicity is? I see that she grew up in Brazil and that she speaks Portuguese and Spanish, but her maiden name is Chapchuk, which sounds Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.50.27 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo
The current photo of Rona Ambrose shows her caught in the moment, and as a result is not a very good photo. For this reason, I will delete the photo from the page until someone can find a more neutral and appropriate one. -

I disagree. The photo is a proper representation.

- Rona is beautiful, wow, if every female MP were as gorgeous as she is, I would be addicted to politics. - The current picture of Ms. Ambrose is terrible, and whoever changed it from its original pic, wants to mock her. It does not matter whether you dislike her or disagree with her policies. What matters is that we uphold the neutrality of this article.


 * If you can find a fair-use picture that is more aesthetic, than by all means replace it. Otherwise, the picture should stay. mhunter 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

-- This is an accurate photo of Ms. Ambrose. ---

Ummm ... can people please sign their comments? Use four tildes (~). This will provide a name/date/time stamp, which makes it easier to review and understand the entries. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 20:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a way better picture of her. It is Image:Rona Ambrose1.jpg. FellowWikip e dian 20:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

--- I agree that this photo should be changed. It is highly unusual to have a photo of someone squinting as their main image. This photo is also outdated. MohammedMohammedمحمد 07:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent non-objective edits
Several edits have been made lately on both sides of the political spectrum which take away from the objectivity of this article. Let's keep it unbiased by avoiding this behavior. --Mattpope 05:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't make major changes to the article, and not provide reasons for them, using an anonymous IP. This appears highly suspect.

Hi. While I also dislike anon. edits, this is still acceptable in wikipedia. In addition, do you mind signing your comments so we can better understand your comments (e.g. it helps when there are several exchanges in a discussion page between users). Thanks, Hu Gadarn 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I added "by some" to the m 312 sentence. The previous version was too absolute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.249.66 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The spotted owl reference is misleading, since BC is at the extreme edge of their range and there are an estimated "several thousand pairs" left in North America. (Fred) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.205.216.187 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian conservative?
I suppose it's due to my lack of understanding of libertarianism, but how can one be both a libertarian and a conservative? NorthernThunder (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible to be personally conservative and a libertarian, but she ain't no libertarian with the anti-drug bit.Civic Cat (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need to believe in everything one ideology follows. Wikipedia has an article on libertarian conservatism. Newfoundlander&#38;Labradorian (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

''Nelson Hultberg wrote that there is "philosophical common ground" between libertarians and conservatives. "The true conservative movement was, from the start, a blend of political libertarianism, cultural conservatism, and non-interventionism abroad bequeathed to us via the Founding Fathers." He said that such libertarian conservatism was "hijacked" by neoconservatism,''

The linked article kind of backs me up and I doubt she believes in half of the libertarian philosophy. I'm taking her out of the category. Put her back in if you feel like it. Civic Cat (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems she was put into the category a little over 9 years ago—12:10, 15 May 2007—back in the early days of Harper's minority gov'ts. Even then, I'd question her libertarianism.Civic Cat (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Minister responsible for the Status of Women
The user attempting to use the language in this section "... her vote was considered inconsistent with her ministerial role and prompted many Canadians to call for her resignation.". Contains two errors. First it does not indicate who considers her vote inconsistent. This is clearly the pro-choice advocates quoted within the reference. Secondly the language "many Canadians" is vague and misleading. In fact 62% of women in canada support a change to the current abortion laws. So it is a minority of Canadians who would be calling for her resignation. How many is "many"? It is vague and undefined and hence not needed in the article 74.198.87.84 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The user mentioned above is continuing to undo changes without dialogue on the talk page. This includes undoing an un-related edit to fix a broken link on the page. The user does not appear to even be paying attention to what they are doing anymore. I have added a citation for the use of the language "pro-choice advocates" (Barbara Kay's article in the National Post). This citation is being deleted by the user without comment other than saying "editorial comments removed". The original citation by that user only mentions a facebook user named "T.J. Jardine" and the BQ critic Maria Mourani both of which are asserting that Rona Ambrose voting for the motion is "against a women's right to choose". This is also known as being a "pro-choice advocate". I believe the edit to change the language to "pro-choice advocate" is reasonable and appropriate. 74.198.87.84 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This and other unregistered editors are repeatedly adding an editorial slant to an even-handed addition. 74.198.87.84 seems insistent on adding the descriptor "pro-choice" to those that have raised issues of propriety regarding Ambrose's actions. While doubtless there are pro-choice advocates that have raised objections, the problem is that the subtext such changes add are the unspoken implication that the only vector of complaint of Ambrose's actions comes under the aegis of pro-choice advocates. Clearly this is not the case and as such, the original wording of the section is more balanced and closer to a fair and even-handed description of actuality.
 * As for the dead link correction, that was an oversight and has been incorporated in the most recent edit. I trust this explains the situation to the satisfaction of 74.198.87.84. Natty10000 | Natter  11:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The "pro-choice advocates" is an accurate term. Go back and re-read the opening paragraph in the citation that was already in the page. In case you don't have it handy here is the text:
 * The Conservative Status of Women Minister who voted in favour of Wednesday night’s failed motion to study the legal rights of the fetus was hit with a torrent of criticism overnight from pro-choice Canadians.
 * Please stop deleting the citation to Barbara Kay's article in the National Post. It is further explaining the pro-choice advocacy statement. The Globe citation only lists one verifiable name which is the BQ member Maria Mourani, and the other is a facebook user. Both of which are making statements affirming their pro-choice stance. The BQ party policy is pro-choice. The facebook user's letter is affirming the women's "right to choose". The fact is the pro-choice advocates are the ones calling her vote inappropriate and the citations on the page both point out this fact. Can you provide a citation otherwise? I will put the language to the effect of pro-choice advocates and "other opponents of m312". Please do not delete my web citations just because you disagree with them. 74.198.87.15 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is you're assigning an all-encompassing descriptor to those not in agreement with your view and not accepting that there is opposition from more than one vector. Hence to lump all vectors under the heading "pro-choice" is inaccurate and is editorialising that which shouldn't be editorialised and which I've gone to pains to avoid. As for your selection of articles to support your assertion, even a cursory reading of what is clearly identified as a "Comment" voids any pretense of the neutrality of source that is the backbone of Wikipedia citation guidelines.
 * It is an opinion piece. Full stop. It is not a news item.
 * It does not qualify for the usage that you are attempting to shoehorn it into. If you are determined to continue your edit war, I will ask that the entry be locked and unidentified editors be prevented from editorialising. Natty10000 | Natter  01:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The citation that is in the page (which you say you consider as a "news item") starts with the line paragraph (emphasis mine):
 * The Conservative Status of Women Minister who voted in favour of Wednesday night’s failed motion to study the legal rights of the fetus was hit with a torrent of criticism overnight from pro-choice Canadians.
 * This is the words of the news article, not mine. I am merely clarifying in the wikipedia page who is levelling the criticism. You state there is opposition from more than one vector but you present no evidence of this fact. The citation in the page only mentions one vector. I have read multiple news and opinion articles on this vote and none of them mention any other vector. If you have the evidence please present it. Otherwise the correct wording in the page should be "pro-choice Canadians" per the given citation.74.198.87.15 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "It is an opinion piece. Full stop. It is not a news item." I think you must've misunderstood this quote from my last entry. Natty10000 | Natter  10:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I heard you the first time Natty. It is the globe and mail article "Status of Women Minister criticized after voting for Woodworth motion" that describes the attack from "pro-choice Canadians". This is the citation that remains in the page.74.198.87.15 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Can you find one person calling for her resignation who is not a supporter of legal abortion (that is, a pro-choice Canadian)? Thanks. 174.2.68.142 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit War
There has been an ongoing problem with unidentified editors editorialising the "Minister responsible for the Status of Women" section insisting on lumping all vectors of complaint about Ms. Ambrose's recent vote under the descriptor "pro-choice" even though it has been shown that represents only part of the complainants. I'm doing my best to keep the article balanced but am wondering whether a temporary lock of some kind is in order TIA  Natty10000 | Natter  01:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All users involved are editwarring, I'm leaving everyone a warning right now. LegoKontribsTalkM 02:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The news article referred to in this page opens with the following paragraph:
 * The Conservative Status of Women Minister who voted in favour of Wednesday night’s failed motion to study the legal rights of the fetus was hit with a torrent of criticism overnight from pro-choice Canadians.
 * I am attempting to clarify two points. First the critics of the vote are from the pro-choice Canadians (noted withing the citation in the article - this is not just my editorializing). Secondly that there is another viewpoint of those Canadians who support her choice to vote Yes on this free-vote. The other user keeps undoing my changes calling it editorializing. I have been attempting to find different wordings including supporting citations (National Post article), however the other user simply deletes them without suggesting any alternative approach. Unlike the other user I am not simply hitting the undo button but attempting to find a wording that can show both sides to the story 74.198.87.15 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi 74.xx. Thank you for presenting your viewpoint. I've disabled the tag since it wont help right now. I encourage you to wait for Natty and 108.xx to comment with their viewpoints before proceding with any controversial edits. I've added this page to my watchlist so I'll keep an eye on it as well. Feel free to drop me a note if you ever need a neutral/second opinion. Thanks and Happy Editing! LegoKontribsTalkM 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's see if we can find a point of agreement. Is Ms. Ambrose being criticised for her action by "pro-choice Canadians" viz. Canadians who support women's rights regarding abortion? Yes; I don't believe anyone at any point has suggested otherwise. Here's the rub; has she been criticised by any other group than "pro-choice Canadians"? The answer again (even within the opinion piece linked-to)? Yes. Politicians from the Bloc Québecois and New Democratic Party in addition to others. However, aside from the cited article being an commentary/opinion piece (entitled "Barbara Kay on Rona Ambrose: When the sisterhood attacks its own") and which clearly fails as a neutral viewpoint support on its face, even that article mentions these other groups. Ergo, attempting to dismiss the different vectors of criticism as all being (and only being) "pro-choice Canadians" editorialises the section needlessly, diminishing its worth as a neutral history.
 * I'm rather surprised 74.198.87.15 has taken issue with my use of the word "many" as a general descriptor for those criticising Ms. Ambrose's action. It's non-denominational and generally inclusive. I'm sure the same word could be used to describe her supporters as opposed to suggesting they're all 'anti-choice'. It doesn't attempt to define or limit in the way using the word "most" might.
 * Thanks for stepping into the lion's den, Legoktm. :) Natty10000 | Natter  11:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and make an edit that should satisfy all. I'll move the location of the "many Canadians" to up front in the sentence.
 * Furthermore I'll have a look around the wikipedia guidelines on citations as this seems a very grey area. For example the citation to "Status of Women Minister criticized after voting for Woodworth motion" contains part fact based reporting and part quotes from critics (i.e. their opinion). So it doesn't seem balanced that the page reflects the opinion of the critics only, however has no opinion from the supporters. I feel we should add the other side to the story not just the critical side. Natty, would you be in support of this subsequent edit if I can find an acceptable reference? 74.198.87.15 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looked at it and that seems to strike a balance. The forward-going challenge may be retaining the balance as others feel inclined to chime-in and avail themselves of anonymous editing. That's one aspect of the Wiki model that always raises a flag for me as an editor. My usual bailiwick is War of 1812-related topics and as soon as I see editing by an IP address, I'll check it out as much more often than not such edits turn out to be vandalism of one kind or another. OTOH, I know that any edit by HLGallon can be trusted to be balanced, factual and fair. Now, obviously that's more easily accomplished on a topic two centuries under the bridge than it is with one so current. But I can't count the number of times Canadians have been involved in the torching of Washington, D.C.. :)
 * To that end, I'd recommend registering rather than lurking. It can help to facilitate discussion and lessen the frequency of this sort of situation. Legoktm, would it be possible that you retain this page on your watchlist for the next week or fortnight? While 74.198.87.15 and I have struck a happy medium, given the currency of the topic I wouldn't be surprised at another 'editor' doing drive-by changes and sending the balance off in the direction of Hades. On behalf of myself and 74.198.87.15, TIA Natty10000 | Natter  15:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, got so involved in other points, I overlooked responding to your bolded point. It would depend on the nature of the citation. As stands, the section is drawing attention to her being criticised without trying to give number or predominance to one view or another, thereby (to my mind at least) striking a balance that the reasonable on either side should be able to live with. The challenge if we start trying to delve into numbers, specifics and opinions is that like **, everyone has one and insofar as they are concerned, theirs is the only right one. IMHO, the likelihood of finding a cite that strikes and maintains the existing balance is unlikely just given the nature of the topic.
 * That said, if you're game and find one, I'm certainly not going to gainsay it in a peremptory manner. Good hunting! Natty10000 | Natter  15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys are definitely making progress, and sure, Natty, I'll keep watching it. Just a quick note to Natty's last comment, I don't think citations have to be neutral per se, they simply need to be reliable. What has to be neutral is our coverage of her. LegoKontribsTalkM 17:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Many" is not a valid wikipedia descriptor... please see the help file if your require guidance. In fact, 6000 Canadians (if you're talking about the list), compared to 34 million, is a tiny, tiny minority. The handful of politicians who have done so, is even far, far fewer. If you insist on adding a description, then please put "a very, tiny, small minority has called for her resignation" -- that removes editorial bias with a more accurate description (I jest of course). 64.66.229.253 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And here we go again. 64.66.229.253, have you availed yourself of this tete-a-tete between 74.198.87.15 and I? Can you say with any certainty that "pro-choice" Canadians and only "pro-choice" Canadians are calling Rona Ambrose on the carpet? Perhaps, have you availed yourself of even reading the disputed National Post commentary column that allowed that politicians also called her down for her action? As I said above, it is a given that pro-choice Canadians are at odds with Ms. Ambrose. However, it is inaccurate to state and imply that only pro-choice Canadians are doing so which is what's implied when you change "many" to "pro-choice". It's also disingenuous of you to reduce the multiple calls to "a" call.
 * Insofar as the numbers are concerned, it is likewise disingenuous of you to suggest that only 6,000 Canadians feel she should resign. That's just one sampling that feels strongly enough to have joined a list. My understanding is that professional surveying companies assign multiples for each person as in their experience it's representative of those who share the view. It also has the unintended side effect of gainsaying your editing the many calls reference to "a" call.
 * Unfortunately, whether you are aware of it or not your edit introduces an editorial bias which is confirmed by your entry here. Please let's hash this out on this page and work toward a resolution that is equally distasteful to all sides (the sign of a good compromise).
 * Oh and 74.198.87.15? My bad on the article undo message. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa Natty10000 | Natter  20:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have temporarily reverted this edit as it should have been discussed on the talk page first. If an agreement can be reached, I have no problem in re-instating it. I have also asked 108.xx to join us on the talk page. LegoKontribsTalkM 22:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also recommend when trying to gain consensus/support for a change, you have reliable sources to back up your claim. 64.xx, if you can provide sources for your claim, it will make it much easier to discuss. LegoKontribsTalkM 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Natty, please use the wiki help guide. PLus, the NDPers who called for her to resign are all pro-choice, so yes, ONLY pro-choice called for her resignation.  Why must you delete fact, and add you opinion? 64.66.229.253 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 64.xx, I don't plan on reverting you again, as I wish to stay neutral in this issue. Can you provide a source for your claims? LegoKontribsTalkM 22:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We may not need another cite as the existing one itself describes the attacks as from pro-choice Canadians. Given the only cite describes using the phrase "pro-choice Canadians" isn't the onus to find another cite on those opposed to the wording? Or to find another description acceptable to all? Rayvel (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading the source linked in that sentence, it specifically states: hit with a torrent of criticism overnight from pro-choice Canadians.
 * Natty, do you have a source that might say otherwise? As the word choice of pro-choice is used the source, it should stay for now. LegoKontribsTalkM 00:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just getting back in and up to speed. Irony aside, perhaps the National Post article is as good a place to start since it was so readily acceptable earlier. Clearly while the author is opinionated in Ms. Ambrose's favour, she does acknowledge that the BQ and NDP have raised complaints. That'd be one cite.
 * This cite from the Globe and Mail would be another on the same track.
 * Getting back to my post this morning, no one has suggested that Ambrose hasn't been taking heat from pro-choice advocates. As I posited then (and see nothing that has changed) "Here's the rub; has she been criticised by any other group than "pro-choice Canadians"? The answer again (even within the opinion piece linked-to)? Yes. Politicians from the Bloc Québecois and New Democratic Party in addition to others. However, aside from the cited article being an commentary/opinion piece (entitled "Barbara Kay on Rona Ambrose: When the sisterhood attacks its own") and which clearly fails as a neutral viewpoint support on its face, even that article mentions these other groups. Ergo, attempting to dismiss the different vectors of criticism as all being (and only being) "pro-choice Canadians" editorialises the section needlessly, diminishing its worth as a neutral history."
 * So perhaps the National Post commentary is necessary to reinforce that there are multiple sources of complaint. Perhaps as well, the middle ground may be "pro-choice groups and Commons opposition parties...."? However, I think it would be dismissive and rather in error to suggest that the only vector of complaint is "pro-choice Canadians". Clearly, this touches a raw nerve for some whose opinion mine is not in lock-step with. Natty10000 | Natter  02:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems appropriate and factual to note the opposition parties and groups in the section. I've made an edit that incorporates your suggestion above. Fyi this is 74.198... I went and made a wikipedia account so I can be logged in. Rayvel (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We'll see whether it stands as-is past dinner time or not. :) Natty10000 | Natter  17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Spotted Owls
Until today the article said about Ambrose: "In August 2006 she stated that although the population of spotted owls in British Columbia is only 17, she does not feel they are threatened and therefore they do not merit any special protection (The Northern Spotted Owl is listed as threatened or Endangered throughout its range in US and Canada)." No citation at all. Eventually I found the actual government-of-Canada press release, which nowadays is available only on wayback, here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060924014854/http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2006/060816_n_e.htm. She did not say that the population is 17, she did not say anything about what she personally "feels", she referred to the northern spotted owl as endangered, she welcomed its special protection by BC. Simply removing the article's false statement is an insufficient remedy, since it has spread from Wikipedia to other pages on the Internet. So I replaced with what Ambrose actually, inside quotation marks in the press release, said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Rona Ambrose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060118/elxn_rona_ambrose_060120/20060120?
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2006/060816_n_e.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Kyoto Protocol
Why does the Kyoto Protocol section have 3 paragraphs? This should not be a 500 word essay. It seems like someone copied and pasted an entire article. I believe this section should be condensed to include Ambrose's position in 2-3 sentences. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ambrose was Minister of the Environment during a period of intense debate over the Kyoto Protocol, so the information in the article seems pertinent. It does need to be cut down a bit (maybe as much as 50%), but reducing the entire thing to 2-3 sentences is definitely too much cutting. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello User:Patar knight,


 * Yes, the information on Ambroses's position on the Kyoto Protocol is important. However, an entire transcript of all of her interviews on the subject is completely absurd. Readers can simply click the links in the sources if they want to read through the entire interviews. 1 brief quote from Ambrose should suffice. This would also be consistent with other articles on political leaders.


 * At least we have reached a partial consensus on the fact that this section should be shortened. I will go ahead and eliminate some of the redundant information. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Rona Ambrose a "Prominent feminist"?
BLP noticeboard Pls see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard--Moxy (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems that the discussion is over.Civic Cat (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Rona Ambrose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160501171929/http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/10/03/naomi-lakritz-feminism-should-mean-thinking-for-yourself/ to http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/10/03/naomi-lakritz-feminism-should-mean-thinking-for-yourself/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160503113154/http://thefulcrum.ca/features/two-solitudes/ to http://thefulcrum.ca/features/two-solitudes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160513172803/http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=d067766d-40aa-4886-a939-aaefa36937de to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=d067766d-40aa-4886-a939-aaefa36937de
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103130635/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=c8c637d2-d6a4-4417-ab3f-8f7a1e7cb4f1&k=64420 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=c8c637d2-d6a4-4417-ab3f-8f7a1e7cb4f1&k=64420
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002083025/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com:80/2012/09/28/barbara-kay-on-rona-ambrose-when-the-sisterhood-attacks-its-own/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/28/barbara-kay-on-rona-ambrose-when-the-sisterhood-attacks-its-own/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rona Ambrose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416111609/https://www.weneedalaw.ca/component/acymailing/archive/view/mailid-58/key-1c109638abc5b70e15dda3cd7b8ea150/tmpl-component to https://www.weneedalaw.ca/component/acymailing/archive/view/mailid-58/key-1c109638abc5b70e15dda3cd7b8ea150/tmpl-component
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060118/elxn_rona_ambrose_060120/20060120
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719031013/http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2011/12/29/international-day-of-the-girl-child-a-canadian-accomplishment/ to http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2011/12/29/international-day-of-the-girl-child-a-canadian-accomplishment/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Post-Political Section Title
Is there an acceptable/widely used format for titling political leaders careers after politics? Currently "post-political" is in Ms. Ambrose's Political Career section and although the subtitle is appropriate that seems wrong. Thanks Elvisisking (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)