Talk:Parti Québécois

Old discussion

This article is clearly not NPOV. Although this sentence about Jacques Rose is true, this it is absolutely not relevant, this is anecdoctic. See this extract from a journalist from the Gazette (not suspect of sympathy to the PQ) http://www.vigile.net/ds-michaud/docs/01-12-8-macpherson.html "Lévesque was appalled. It was his worst nightmare about the Parti Québécois come true. He had wept that night in 1970 when he heard that Pierre Laporte's body had been found; he had absolutely no sympathy for the sentimental ovation for those convicted for his kidnapping and murder." This is an event taken out of context and it implies that all members of Parti Québécois are in favour of violent action.

Can someone well informed read this article to verify NPOV ?

As someone who read up over the whole Quebec independence thing a while ago, I can say this article is definately not NPOV.

As someone who is still reading on this and has lived through much of the events, I also agree. On the other hand, let's be positive about this! Given the intense passion generated over these political debates I have the impression this is about as neutral as we can ever get. There will always be somebody coming in to try and paint the PQ black, dredging up every possible negative thing about it while others will always come in to try and whitewash it completely. As things stand today most of the facts are in, even if the presentation is not as balanced as I would hope, and there are many declarations given without context. Sure the article would be more neutral if you removed the adjectives and the superlatives. Sure, the article would be richer with paragraphs establishing context for all those controversies. But doing these things would mean moving around in a battlefield where snipers are still very active and it would also entail doubling or quadrupling the size of the article. Right now I don't have an armored suit in my wardrobe. Good luck you all, cause you sure need it. 2003-12-09, 13:41 ---

I think adding the sentence about Jacques Rose's standing ovation, without the slightest explanation, was an inappropriate and subjective move. Aside from its evident subjectivity, I also doubt its relevancy in an article about a political party. (Should we mention everyone else who received an ovation or was booed during a convetion?) Tremblay 20:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note the following:

• (cur) (last) . . 03:01, 6 Dec 2003 . . Tremblay (Following general concensus, removing bias-by-content)

What general concensus? I have reinstated this important information and added corollary information relative to extremist members of the party. Angelique 18:04, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on the insertion of an anecdote on a standing ovation on November 17, then more voices supported the removal of that mention here. Three weeks later, seeing as there was no dissent, I removed it.. That's general consensus.

Besides, you're being inconsistent. You proclaim that giving background information (Quebec's majoritarily francophone population, safeguarding the culture in North America, etc) on the nature and necessity of a party like the PQ in Quebec is "not relevant to the article". Yet you think something as anecdotic and irrelevant as a standing ovation is? Tremblay 22:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

The PQ is not entirely a social democratic party. The last vestiges of the fallangist Union Nationale were absorbed into the Parti Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard was right-of-centre, and Bernard Landry was the successor to Bouchard.

Falangist? Falangist? ...wait, I'll read this again. ...falangist? Are we speaking of the falangists I'm thinking of? One does not make that kind of statement without weighing their words. I-am-no-fan, NO FAN of the pre-1960 Union Nationale: it was corrupted, conservative, counter-laicist, arrogant, hostile to labor unions and proponent of an old nationalism without independence. But in no way was it falangist before the death of Duplessis, or after. And, speaking of after, the party was much more honorable under the govern of Mr. Daniel Johnson Sr., himself an Irish-Quebecois (that's some falangist for ya'). Absorbed, you say? There was no formal fusion of the UN and the PQ. Furthermore, as some of the highest members, the followers have indubitably switched allegiance to both parties. Robert Bourassa's Liberals were closer to some of the weak nationalists of the federalist-nationalist faction of the UN.

Honourable? Mr. Johnson was constantly compared Mr. Lévèsque to Fidel Castro and wasn't even capable of winning a fair election (Montreal had 2/5 of Quebec's population and 1/5 of the MNA seats in 1966), having lost the popular vote by 7 points (In a U.S. Presidential election, 7 points would mean a landslide victory in the Electoral College, in Quebec, it meant losing the National Assembly by 6 seats.). If you want to put honourable and Union Nationale in the same sentence together, it had better include the words "Gilbert Layton" and "leaving the party when he realised that opposing Liberal corruption under Godbout did not justify supporting a far-right movement.") That being said, isn't ideology that mixes ultra-conservatism with Roman Catholicism inherently falangist? I mean, Duplessis was a guy who went beyond opposing World War 2 on pacificist to being openly sympathetic to Hitler and to Pétain (He allowed Vichy collaborators to escape execution in Quebec and was extremely hostile to many of the groups that Hitler slaughtered en masse, including Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and radical leftists.). He used both armed thugs and Catholic priests to muzzle free speech in Quebec in a way that it has never before and never since been muzzled in any Canadian jurisdiction.

The conservative and ultramontane political clique of Duplessis inherited power from the reactionary clique which collaborated with the imperialist and anti-catholic businessmen who established a British Federal Dominion in Canada in 1867. In other words, the retarded bunch of short-sighted narrow-minded Quebec capitalists who collaborated to the system of British Indirect Rule over the people Quebec from the 1840 Union Act up until now did everything they could, and continue to do everything they can to block the liberal/progressive movement that pushes for the creation of a free, democratic, secular, and egalitarian Republic of Quebec (aka Republic of Lower Canada, Republic of Laurentia).

One has to avoid making people they know nothing about guilty by association. Duplessis's blind catholicism made him (and others) follow all the reactionary ideologies of his time. The catholic church, made almighty and powerful with the Quebec Act, had an index of banned books, banned movies until the 1960s. To have a more neutral view of nazi collaboration in Canada, I recommend reading up on the open anti-semitism of Prime Minister of Canada Mckenzie King who refused to let Jewish refugees enter Canada during WWII http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1ARTJ0020181

As of Lucien Bouchard, a long debate is still going on about this, but it was under his government that, for example, the progressive public daycare system was instituted and he kept alive the major aspects of Jean Lesage and René Lévesque's Welfare State, built by four decades of progressive work. And the act of reducing a great deficit left by the Liberals so the younger generations won't have to starve to pay the bills is in a way not that big a treason to social democracy. When one compares to Jean Charest's right-wing ... demolition derby of the present government, when one compares Mr. Bouchard to the *real* right Quebecers forgot about, the one the left forgot to defend the people against, one sees how much Bouchard wasn't all that bad. --Liberlogos 20:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You win. But when did I ever put Bouchard even further to the right than Charest? It's true, however, Tories and former Tories are very influential in every relevant party in Quebec, save, of course, the UFP.

The PQ is social democratic but like many social democratic parties it should not be described simply as "left wing". Moderate left or centre-left is fine but if it were "left wing" there would be no UFP. AndyL

Left and right are too narrow an idea to really encompass the true spectrum of politics. Ideology mixes with practicality and political convienance. No party is truly left or right while they are in power or within reach of power.Manic-pedant 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'?

(beginning of paragraph under History) Critics, both francophone and anglophone, have however criticized Bill 101 for restraining citizens' linguistic school choice, as if forbids immigrants and Quebeckers of French descent from attending English-language school.

Was 'as if forbids' supposed to be 'as it forbids' or 'as if it forbids'? Either could easily have an almost invisible typo resulting in the current language, but the two have very different meanings. Scott 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2007 Campaign Slogan?

I'm not quite sure as to what the PQ's campaign slogan is in the current election. I put OUI, because that is what's at the bottom of all of their campaign signs. However, at the same time, their website (as well as the posters themselves) seem to suggest that their slogan is Reconstruisons _________ (Notre Région/Un Québec en Sante/Un Québec Plus Instruit/Un Québec Plus Vert).

Could someone shed some light on which of these is their actual slogan for this election? Or is a mixture of the two? SimFan10076 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found out, according to Radio-Canada, the slogan is actually «Reconstruisons notre Québec» SimFan10076 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Logo

"As the letter Q is relatively rarely used on an everyday basis..."

This may be true in English, but not in French. "Qui," "quoi," "quand," and "quel" are the French words for "who," "what," "when," and "which."

JohnnyB 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... Funny. I thought this was the english wiki... --Dez26 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the text said the Q logo is distinctive because the letter isn't used in a regular basis. That isn't true in French. JohnnyB 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's too late to answer, but to clear up. The party's official name in French remains the same in English. No one speaks of "Quebecker Party" in English, only the "Parti Québécois". Pieuvre 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on Party Policy

Where is such a section? Why isn't it in this article? It would seem the most relevant place. I hope someone can lead me to a Wikipedia link on that. Toddsschneider 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo Parti Québécois.svg

Image:Logo Parti Québécois.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Annihilation of Canada?

The introduction says that the party supports Quebec separation and "annihilation" of Canada. That doesn't sound right and looks like some kind of subliminal message. I guess Canada would not exist as it currently does, but I think annihilation is a little strong, and is being used purposefully here to represent a POV. Just wanted to hear comments before trying to edit it. Paxuniv (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's weird. "Total annihilation," actually. Clearly represents a POV. Adam (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Internal crisis in 1984

The party was re-elected in the 1981 election, but in November 1984 it experienced the most severe internal crisis of its existence. The incident resulted in the resignation of Premier René Lévesque. In September 1985, the party leadership election chose Pierre Marc Johnson as his successor.

What kind of crisis was it? I think that it's not properly explained in the article. J-C V (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Party policy

The section on party policy in this article is very bad. Look at articles about other political parties and you'll see that 'party policy' deals with (surprise surprise) the main policies of that party. Here, 80% talks about one single bill that never was passed. It can be mentioned, of course, but it's not the only policy of the party. The reactions to it are irrelevant for the section and I suggest they be removed. 'Party policy' should give an overview of the positions of the party and its major political aims, not go into a long discussion about what newspaper columnists elsewhere think about one detail of those aims. JdeJ (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

First time wiki writing so I figure I post in the talk page and someone who knows the rules can help incorporate this. Google translate this page: http://pq.org/actualite/nouvelles/pauline_marois_et_gilles_duceppe_determines_a_faire_avancer_le_quebec_vers_la_so and you'll see Pauline Marois' view on sovereignty has changed as of 1 November 2010. Also their 'plan'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.83.86 (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are no "citizens of Quebec" but that people are citizens of Canada (even if the PQ doesn't want to be). There is no passport for Quebec and no citizenship of Quebec. This should be noted to clarify to readers who may not know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.20.175 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not social democratic or left-wing

The PQ was formed as a separatist party, and not as a social democratic party, and its constitution does not commit it to social democracy and it is not a member of the Socialist International. In terms of left-right ideology it is broad tent. Therefore the references to social democracy and left-wing should be removed. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the references. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The PQ was member of the Socialist International. I am sure of that, but I do not know for certain when it started and when it stopped. It had the member status of observer. I will have to search for specifics. Social democracy was and still is today part of the party's official programme.

There is evidence that social democracy is still in the party's official programme, in the two most recent one: 2001 and 2005.

In 2001, it was on page 192 is says (my translation):

"The unionization of workers is a fundamental element of a social democratic society. There is no substitute to the democratic organization of workers and a policy of full employment is inconceivable without a unionism fully playing its role. ...." -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In 2005, we find almost the same words on page 48

"The unionization of workers is a fundamental element of a democratic society, the more so in a society that aims for social democracy. To erect a society of solidarity and equity as well as one of economic and social efficacy is unthinkable without the participative presence of workers united in strong, free, dynamic and responsible unions."

So what is certain is that it was natural language for the party until at least 2005. As far as I know, this is still the programme today.

When the party started, it was attempting to coalize all forces favourable to the independence of Quebec (through parliamentary means). The only right-wing elements of the party came from the Ralliement national, and they were outnumbered by those from Lévesque's MSA. When the Rassemblement pour l'Indépendance Nationale dissolved and its members joined the PQ, it was clearly left and social democrats dominated in influence. The party was labelled as social democrat and the label was not rejected by the party. It is true though that the party's main objective has made it strive to appear neutral, because to get 50% + 1 in a referendum, being identified as left or right is not good. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I found a lot of things, unfortunately not quite precise on dates. In any case, this article clearly states that the PQ "has sought and received observer status in the Socialist International." It appears the party attempted to become a full member in the early 1980s, but was blocked. I presume there is much to learn on this topic here:

Philippe Poulin. "La tentative d’adhésion du Parti québécois à l’internationale socialiste", in Bulletin d'histoire politique, vol. 6, numéro 3, printemps 1998. I'll try to consult it at the library tonight to sort this out. -- Mathieugp (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's right there on p. 48 and p. 192 of the party programme! Sorry I missed it. I'll put it back in but it would help to have a better reference, like the party constitution. I read recently that they applied to join the SI but were rejected because of objection from the NDP. Does anyone know about the Bloc? The Four Deuces (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

- The PQ's statutes can be downloaded here. The statutes section starts at page 81. It does not use the expression "sociale démocratie" anywhere. However, I do not expect it should be there, the way the document is organized. I believe referencing the two latest official party programmes is good enough, don't you think? Also, where did you read about the NDP's interference? Is the source online, or is it paper?

- The Bloc, contrary to the PQ, shows itself before the electors telling them they will never form the government. Consequently, they do not have a "regular" party programme detailing what they intend to do when they control the legislature. They do not promise any jobs, any reforms, etc. They just say: "we will be watching what Ottawa does in Quebec and bark when the feds go over the line", which happens all the time, hence the constant barking. ;-) Anyways, their latest statutes are here, and the programme here. Regarding the "leanings" of the Bloc, they have tended to resemble those of the PQ, especially under Gilles Duceppe, whose "career" in politics and the labour movement is a sure testimony of where he is coming from [1] -- Mathieugp (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It didn't happen here By Seymour Martin Lipset, Gary Marks: "In the 1970s the PQ applied for membership in the Socialist International, but was rejected because the NDP already represented Canada."

http://books.google.ca/books?id=3y1cAMsYzmQC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%22parti+quebecois%22+%22socialist+international%22&source=bl&ots=RuKH63UQAK&sig=JmKJzYqwg617HV7iOhzUBwc_tfA&hl=en&ei=lcbGSfDDIJfCMef4xYIK&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA19,M1

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. I added it as a footnote. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I scanned through the Philippe Poulin's article and sucked the substance out of it here. Translation to English here -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Qc-pq-1968.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Qc-pq-1968.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Qc-pq-1968.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd and redundant use of the definite article "The"

This is a very minor grammatical issue but I was reverted earlier for deleting the article "the" from "... legacy of the PQ is the..." I am a little puzzled by the reversion because my edit appears to be consistent with English news media (e.g., [2][3]) and grammar. With few exceptions, "the" is usually used when referring to generic nouns (e.g., cat, animal, etc) or nouns preceded by adjectives (big cat, large animal) but not to names (e.g., Canada, Toronto, Parti Québécois). Thus, the excessive use of "the" in this WP article is peculiar, especially to readers of English. It would be as strange as referring to someone as "leader of the Canada" instead of "leader of Canada" or to an object as being "a property of the Wikipedia" instead of "a property of Wikipedia." danielkueh (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of proper nouns that use "the" in English (especially when the name contains an adjective), such as the United Kingdom, the CBC, the Mayflower, or the Republican Party. In fact, the references that you, yourself, cited use "the PQ" or "the Parti Quebecois" three times each. The only exceptions are in the headlines (see Headlinese) and when "PQ" was being used as an adjective (as in "another PQ government"). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome, I agree that "the" is sometimes used when referring to certain proper nouns. I'm not arguing for a wholesale removal of "the" from this article. However, I do think it should be used more selectively. In this instance, is it really necessary to use "the" after a preposition such as "of," especially with respect to origin (e.g., leader of PQ)? The two references clearly do not use "the" to indicate origin. There are other examples (non-headline) as well [4][5] danielkueh (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not using "the" in that case sounds very odd to me. The only times I can think of hearing that usage (outside of headlines) is by someone who was just learning English. On Google, the phrase "leader of the Parti Quebecois" gets about 394k hits, whereas "leader of Parti Quebecois" gets about 11k. The difference is even bigger with other parties: "leader of the Liberal Party" gets 8.6M whereas "leader of Liberal Party" gets 41k (most of which look like headlines). For the Republican Party the difference is 10M versus 29k; for the Labour Party it's 8.2M versus 56k. Using "the" before "of" looks like it's literally hundreds of times more common. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's funny that you say that (learners of English omitting "the"). From my experience, it seems to be the opposite. Anyway, I used Google to compare search results between "leader of PQ" and "leader of the PQ." The numbers appear to be on the side of "the PQ". So I concede the point. Thanks for humoring me. :) danielkueh (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is funny, and it's interesting that there are some publications that write it your way. I wonder if there is some regional or contextual differences that I'm not seeing. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"The" just makes sense to me. When naming a party or association, it only sounds right with "the" in front. 117Avenue (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"imperialist anti-catholic businessmen" ?

"The conservative and ultramontane political clique of Duplessis inherited power from the reactionary clique which collaborated with the imperialist and anti-catholic businessmen who established a British Federal Dominion in Canada in 1867."

What a load of Orwellian historical revisionism and flat-out nonsense! The French Canadian leaders, both political and religious, wanted Confederation, as did the Maritimes; they insisted on it. And who were these people? They were largely homogeneous French Canadians, and Irish-Scottish "British" roots established here for generations and born here, entitled to self-government and cultural and political self-preservation.

Thomas D'Arcy McGee, at pages 137-139 in Hansard will tell you the ethnicity of the Founding Canadians; read that and tell us they are not entitled to self-government on their own soil, on the federal principle. We know the French Canadians are almost homogeneous in Lower Canada (to become Quebec); now, Statesman McGee, speaking of the ethnicity of the Maritime Founding Colonies to be Joined in Confederation in Hansard at p. 138:

“I may observe, however, that this population is almost universally a native population of three or four or more generations. In New Brunswick, at the most there is about twelve per cent, of an immigrant people; in Nova Scotia, about eight; in the two islands [Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland], very much less. In the eye of the law we admit no disparity between natives and immigrants in this country; but it is to be considered that where men are born in the presence of the graves of their fathers, for even a few generations, the influence of that fact is great in enhancing their attachment to that soil.„

Now, as to the generosity of the majority of the statesmen who founded Canada, McGee again, p. 137:

"It will be observed Governor GORDON speaks of four counties in the north of New Brunswick which still bear a marked French character. Well, gentlemen of French origin, we propose to restore these long-lost compatriots to your protection: in the Federal Union, which will recognize equally both languages, they will naturally look to you; their petitions will come to you, and their representatives will naturally be found allied with you. Suppose those four New Brunswick counties are influenced by the French vote, and two in Nova Scotia, and one in Newfoundland, you will, should you need them, have them as sure allies to your own compact body, to aid your legitimate influence in the Federal councils. (Cheers.)„

In that passage, we see that the Founding Fathers planned a way to reunite the French Canadians across the Colonies by offering to the future Quebec the opportunity to represent the political demands of French Canadian minorities in the other provinces, at the federal level. They are offering to the French Canadians a path to reconstitute New France at the federal level. These are decent, good men who care for their Catholic, French Canadian neighbors.

You can look it up yourself in the Google copy of the Debates. Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, Legislative Assembly, Thursday, February 9, 1865, Pages 137-8 / Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, 3rd Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada. Quebec: Hunter, Rose & Co., Parliamentary Printers. 1,050 pages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.231.71 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Complete bias between the anglo and the franco version

I am shocked to realize 2 main differences between the English and the francophone versions of the Parti Québécois. In the anglophone version the title "Collpase and temporary loss of party statute" suggests a kind of personal pleasure, while the francophone one which is way more neutral talks about the post 2nd referendum era and calls it "weakening". But the most shocking bias of the anglophone version is the indirect idea that the party would have ties with the far-right because of some isolated members while the party is clearly social-democrat. In the francophone version, there is absolutely no allusion to any links with the far-right unlike on the English version. Could we reduce the partiality gap between both versions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.173.183.250 (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggested ties with extreme right

I have removed the tie with extreme right section. That part was seriously biased and poorly supported with an attempt to link the extreme right with the party Quebecois using a dubious investigation from a news paper who had serious bias against the sovereignty movement. Post media news references must be used with extreme caution the are the equivalent of the British daily-mails.

The theory was supported only on the fact that some of the PQ supporters where also hard right supporters. The link between the fact and the theory is simply none existant for the simple reason that you don't choose your supporters like an actor dont choose his fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA48:6D9F:E3E0:C4FC:B9C7:7450:1B72 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)