Talk:Constitution Party (United States)

message: There is a lot of information that may be useful, properly organized, but is distributed oddly over the whole work.  Lots of editing work to be done.  The affiliates table is likely too useful for deletion, but perhaps it should go at the end of the article?
This article also suffers from POV framing and leans heavily on hyperbolic editorials as citations.  I just looked up the references for the "far right" label, and they were all polemical or dismissive references rather than an attempt to identify the CP with the views on the wiki "far right" page.  So right now this labeling misleadingly suggests that CP has ideological affinities with fascism, hierarchical nationalism, etc.  In fact, CP is basically a throwback to 19th century U.S. politics.  Right-wing, yes, but not "far" right.
Ideally we could provide a more enlightening introductory paragraph, which doesn't give a good sense of what the party actually stands for.  Hopefully I'll get to some of this clean-up in the next few days.Monomakhos (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Quality

message: Right now, the history section gives the impression that the AIP merged with the Constitution Party, which seems not to be accurate.  The AIP was the California affiliate with the CP from 1992-2008 and then underwent a dispute over whether to remain so affiliated.  Breaking into factions, one side supported Alan Keyes and the American Party in the Presidential campaign rather than supporting CP's Chuck Baldwin.  They secured ballot access under the AIP name in California, so arguably the American Party faction has greater claim as *the* AIP.  In any case, the issue is disputed, and so probably we should revise the history section to avoid making stronger claims than are warranted.  Monomakhos (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliation with the American Independent Party 

message: Both this page and the Libertarian page both claim to be the third largest parties in America.  Since the Libertarian Page has three sources, and this page has only 1, I think we should go with the page with more evidence.99.174.92.174 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the United States' largest states don't require voters to register by political party; so figures are distorted by accidents of local practice. If you accept that the AIP in California is still a Constitution Party affiliate, and if you go by total figures only from states which do have partisan registration, than it's the CP by raw number count, due purely to California. If you do not do anything of the sort, I'd say that the Libbies are probably the de facto biggest third party in the U.S. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you proposing a # of voters in AIP vs Libertarian (or Constitution) primaries as the metric to determine which is the larger party? It is not clear why registration would be the best or most relevant indicator of party size, as party affiliation is something that is often only an indicator of which primary a voter wished to participate in during a given electoral cycle. [This is not an 'accident of local practice,' but the intended effect of electoral rules.] Here are some possible ways to evaluate party size:
* VOTE SHARE
Many (most) minor parties have nominating conventions and not primaries, so a vote share is not recorded in Secretaries of State's records, so primary vote may be misleading. Lets look at all possible votes (combining votes cast at primary & general). If you wanted to use vote counts to determine the size of a party, the AIP & Constitution Party garnered ~34,000 primary & ~145,000 general votes over 56 candidates in the 2012 congressional elections [according to the FEC http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.shtml [Note: if you use the fusion ballot results - from NY & Oregon- that total increases to ~335,000 votes over 57 candidates.]  It looks like the highest minor party vote getter (by FAR) in the 2012 congressional elections is the Democratic Farmer Labor with 4.1M votes for 26 candidates, though this party is 'affiliated' with the Democratic Party. The next largest party in 3rd party vote share was Libertarian with 2.3M votes over 212 candidates, followed by the Independent Party, Working Families, Conservative Party, Progressive Party...with an AIP / Constitution Party combination (including votes cast on fusion ballots) coming in around the 13th largest vote getter. So... by votes cast in federal contests, AIP/Constitution is assuredly NOT the third largest party. 
* CANDIDATES FIELDED 
Oligarchies need oligarchs, so parties have to field candidates to gain power. If one wanted to use the number of candidates fielded to assess party size, the Libertarian Party does a far better job than any other minor party to attract candidates to run under their label.
* PARTISANSHIP
The 'third largest party' claims the original poster is concerned about seems to be making claims about party identification - a political-sociological concept that is not about ascribing party 'membership' as recorded by a party. The ANES tracks partisan 'identifiers' since 1952, but their measure is focused upon the 2 relevant parties in the US and trying to put them in relation to each other [though the original conceptualization suggested more about identification as a group than ideological content or relational position]. see http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm Gallup also does not seem to have enough non-major party identifiers to report from their rolling sample. Other ideas where to look for this public opinion info? CCES? [I am aware of no reliable data to use this metric to determine minor party size]
* ELECTORAL WINNERS / ELECTED OFFICIALS
You could use # of electoral winners as the metric to decide size of party - as is historically used to describe a party system. [DFL:9; Independent:1; American Independent/Constitution:0; LIB:0]. So, in that instance [again], neither page is correct. [DFL & Independent caucus with the Democrats.]
You could use vote share in presidential elections (relevant to several advantages -financial, balloting - for the party in coming elections). In the most recent U.S. Presidential election, the Libertarians garnered the most votes in 2012 of any non-major party candidate, but less than 1% of popular vote  see http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/tables2012.pdf   Gary Johnson garnered 1.2M votes (followed by Jill Stein of the Green Party). Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus (1996)  http://press.princeton.edu/titles/1832.html  conclude that the success of third party candidates in the US historically is more a function of candidate quality (name recognition, prior electoral experience) than organizational factors. Further findings point to dissatisfaction with existing parties / trust in govt / scandal are all factors that seem to lead to increases in minor party vote share. So... not about membership size or primary participation.
Whether using number of fielded candidates, vote share, count of elected representatives, or some other unspecified metric, discussing which is the third largest party in the US is probably not a worth wasting more time on. They are both very minor parties in a two-party system. 
Potentate4 (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This can't be the third largest party 

message: I've been bothered by the Constitution Party being listed as "Far right" on social issues for a while, not because I am a member of the party or am even sympathetic to its positions on social issues(I'm not- I'm sure Constitutional Party members would condemn many of my raw Libertarian beliefs). Characterizing the party as "Far right" is problematic for several reasons, mainly because there isn't any thing in the platform which someone who is on the right side of the Republican mainstream would disagree with. That the reference cited was from the SPLC, an organization which tends to label almost all committed conservatives as "extreme" or "Far right" is also a problem. 
But listing them as simply "right wing" has its own problems as well. The Constitution Party does approach things from a different angle much as the Libertarian Party does(I've heard Libertarians called "right wing" on economic issues and "left wing" on social issues, but that's a gross oversimplification. The best way to describe the views of the Constitution Party might be Paleoconservatism or Right-wing populism. After all, the party was started as a vehicle for Pat Buchanan and he and the press both describes himself using those terms. VictorianMutant(Talk) 10:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Far right again.  What do we mean by far right? The definition in the Far-right politics article is "Far right politics involves support of strong or complete social hierarchy in society, and supports supremacy of certain individuals or groups deemed to be innately superior who are to be more valued than those deemed to be innately inferior."  This does not seem to describe the CP's stated beliefs.  JASpencer (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The thing is none of those statements address the fact that most of the values that were listed in the ideology box were already covered by the ideologies listed. We don't need over a dozen values listed when we can list half as many ideologies. Alexander Levian (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree. It's fair to leave those isms out of the ideology box. Those are policies/values and are already covered with Paleoconservatism. Alexander Levian (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology of Constitution Party 

message: This is a conservative party and conservative parties are labeled center right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: conservative parties are labeled center right? That's a sweepingly meaningless statement. "Conservative" covers a lot of ground, and there is no centrist faction or element in the Constitution Party whatsoever. They are right-wing and proud of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with OrangeMike... if anything, the Constitution Party is a reaction against what they perceive as the "center-right"  stance of the GOP. They might not be "far right" (as I mentioned above), but they sit firmly on the right side of the spectrum on almost all issues. Even those issues in which they tend to disagree with the right and agree with the left (such as against free trade and against interventionism), they tend to do so with a conservative worldview- not because they are "liberal" or "centrist" on the issue. VictorianMutant(Talk) 22:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I concede your point. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would agree that right wing is appropriate and that "far right" is more POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We do go by what sources say though, right? We don't decide ourselves what it is. And far right is different from ultra-right, lke the NSM, etc. So we say how it has been described, not what we ourselves see it as. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The claim had several reliable sources cited. You can look at them once I restore the information. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That's your opinion. Your opinion doesn't override the reliable sources. The information has been restored. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political position of the Constitution Party 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentence containing the Southern Poverty Law Center. This type of critique is inappropriate in an Overview section, which should simply be used to describe the subject of the article. Hackercraft (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it, since it does describe the party; where else in the article would you say it belongs? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it doesn't describe the party. It gives the SPLC's opinion of the party, which is inappropriate in the Overview section. I wouldn't say it even belongs in the article, nevertheless, at your request, I moved it. Hackercraft (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I suggest adding the presidential ticket (names) to the table of Election Results for President.
(I would still retain the "Presidential tickets" section, but this could also be done by merging the two.)
Tripodics (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add presidential ticket (names) to table? 

message: The Constitution Party is unlike other political parties in that it has a bottom up rather than a top down organization. Per it's national bylaws, each state organization is regarded as an independent affiliate. In fact, each state party must submit a signed document to the national organization every four years before their presidential nominating convention pledging their fidelity to national party principles and affirming that they have a duly elected organization with their own state bylaws and depository bank account. Other than that, they are completely on their own and do not receive any financial support or direction from the national organization.  This is why some state affiliates do not identify themselves with the "Constitution Party" name even though they send committeemen and delegates to national meetings and conventions and vote on internal national party policies. Thus, the states are free to take independent positions and actions on issues where the national has not yet stated any.  It is for this reason that yesterday's proposed Wikipedia page merger (and by who's authority, anyway) is completely out of order. Merging of the state pages will muddy all of the individual state party histories and just add confusion to the subject - SOMETHING WHICH IS 180 DEGREES COMPLETELY OPPOSITE OF WIKIPEDIA'S STATED OBJECTIVES. -  Lexington62 (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you clearly don't understand or perhaps disagree with our concept and criteria of 'notability'. None of what you have written above is relevant to whether or not they should have articles. And the decision at the AfD is supported at WP:DRV. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Bottom Up, Not Top Down Organization 

message: If we unmark this for merge i will keep this page active.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Ricks (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd need a compelling reason to overturn the decision of the now-closed AFD and DelReview. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that decision was made through due process and an appeal denied through due process. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging  

message: Can someone explain to me why it was somehow decided to use a shade of violet/purple (#A356DE) as the color for the Constitution Party? I can't see any logical reason why a shade of violet would be used for a right-wing Christian party. Violet is a feminine color associated perhaps with the LGBT community and left-wing social justice movements.  I think it would make most logical sense to use a shade of beige like #D2B48C for the Constitution Party- the color of the parchment of the U.S. Constitution, and a color that better reflects the stoic conservatism of the Constitution Party. The official colors of the Constitution Party are red, white, and blue- I can't find any evidence whatsoever that the Constitution Party identifies "purple" as its color, other than an unsourced claim on Wikipedia itself claiming that purple is its "customary" color; there is nothing "purple" on the Constitution Party website. I think the color used for the Constitution Party should be changed to better reflect the party and its values. Purple does NOT fit the Constitution Party. A shade of beige resembling the parchment of the U.S. Constitution would be a much better fit for the Constitution Party. Inqvisitor (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Color Scheme for the Constitution Party 

message: Regarding the use of "theocracy" in the lead: I did a quick search and the cited article was the only news article I saw that called the party a theocracy. Admittedly, the search wasn't overly in-depth. If there are more reliable sources that call it that, I'd be happy to look at them and see if my position should change, but as it stands, I think the term is very loaded and doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lead based on a single article. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed a bit above. There are other sources at  although not all of the references to theocratic are about this party. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Which ones DO call it theocratic? You and I have both been around long enough to know that the search results won't mean much if we don't know which ones use the term specifically in reference to the party. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looking at some of them, I find it interesting that Blumenthal is one who uses it. He's the one we use as a source earlier. Aren't there other sources on the party besides him? The second source on the list is from a company called OR Books, a print-on-demand "alternative" publisher. I'm gonna have to question the reliability there. One of those sources (A Religion of Peace) actually says that the party is not a theocratic one. The rest of the ones one the first two pages or results don't support calling them a theocracy. So again, we're pretty much limited to one or two sources saying it (and one that refutes it), and the use is a bit dubious. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I'd like to throw in my two cents that recent candidates in the party seem to be moving away from the Christian Reconstructionism elements and more towards overt nationalist positions (anti-immigration, isolationism, protectionism). It's worth noting that a number of candidates have been Mormons and Catholics, who presumably wouldn't subscribe to Christian Reconstructionism as such (though are probably sympathetic to a larger "Christian America" rhetoric.) I think the party is more comparable to, say, France's Front National (which also has theocratic roots but is not a strictly theocratic party at this point) than to the Netherlands' SGP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracy 

message: We now have the party called a conservative party with a source that says 
"Another far-right organization with whom the AIP has long been aligned is Howard Phillips’ militia-minded Constitution Party. The AIP has been listed as the Constitution Party’s state affiliate since the late 1990s, and it has endorsed the Constitution Party’s presidential candidates (Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin) in the past two elections.
The Constitution Party boasts an openly theocratic platform that reads, “It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.” 
I'm sure there are sources that call it conservative, but there are also sources that call it right-wing - do people seriously see it as some equivalent to the Republican Party? The Republicans are conservative - isn't this group to the right, as many sources say? Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *The source (Blumenthal) seems to like to use words like theocracy and right-wing. He spreads it around. But inevitably, it comes back to a guy saying it. "Right-wing" can be used as a pejorative and I think it is being used that way in this case. Let me ask this, if we eliminate anything with Blumenthal's fingerprints on it, can we really support this more strongly than saying "conservative"? Are we essentially letting one guy set the tone of this article? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Doug, I haven't made this confrontational, so I'd appreciate it if you keep the snipe comments to a minimum. No, I haven't looked for proof that some sources called it "right wing". Why exactly would I since my point was that the term is being used as a pejorative? If I can find 5-10 reliable sources that call Justin Bieber a "punk", would you expect that to go in the lead of his bio? Just because someone has said it doesn't make it the best choice. This is especially true in the lead, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. Some discussion later in the article is one thing, but lead, and in this case the first sentence, is something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

text: *I think what complicates this is that the party has been so fluid. It has made several changes over the years and has had state level parties using the same name join and leave the national party. That's another reason I'm hesitant to "tar and feather" the party by using a term like "theocracy" in the lead. I'd also note that both of the sources calling it theocratic are from the same author, Blumenthal. This isn't a question of whether or not a RS has ever said that. The question is whether or not the term is used regularly enough to be one of the first things a reader sees? I don't see the broad use that would make me comfortable with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Here's an earlier version. It mentions theocratic but doesn't put it in the lead. Two other sources there also. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV removal of 'right-wing' 

message: "The CPNV is not affiliated with any national party." - if they say so, we should believe it. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitution Party of Nevada 

message: AlexanderLevian says that "political positions in info boxes for political parties in the United States are in alphabetical order", but that is not true. As with most political parties in the world, ideologies are listed by priority or logical order. In fact, it would be quite strange to have "Fiscal conservatism" or "Laissez-faire" before "Libertarianism" in the Libertarian Party's infobox. Republican and Democratic ideologies reflect both a logical and an alphabetic order. --Checco (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement is true for the Republican Party and Democratic Party. However you are right about the Libertarian Party. I should have said that this is generally the case. I'm not going to mess with it until we can come to some sort of agreement. I may be missing something. How does it being in alphabetical order cause (or contribute to) the problem that you were trying to fix? Thanks for starting this discussion. Alexander Levian (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, I have no problems with the alphabetical order (that is why I fixed it twice after your edit summary) if that is the option you like most. This said, I would prioritize the ideologies logically, in the following way: Paleoconservatism, Fiscal conservatism, Social conservatism, Christian right, Dominion Theology. I have some douts about mentioning the latter because it is not exactly an ideology, but it is ultimately OK with me. --Checco (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be onto something. I agree that the list of ideologies should have some logic behind the order. Maybe we could put Paleoconservativism at the top in bold and have the rest of them in alphabetical order? Alexander Levian (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably the best idea. This is primarily a paleoconservative, theocratic party. Those should receive primary attention to distinguish it from more mainstream, non-paleo groups. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an improvement. However, I would refrain from using bold and I stick to the order I proposed — Paleoconsevatism, Fiscal conservatism, Social conservatism, Christian right, Theocracy — even though the latter seems a little bit too far to me. --Checco (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This order seems more logical: Paleoconsevatism, Christian right, Social conservatism, Fiscal conservatism, Theocracy. Alexander Levian (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, why? Fiscal conservatism is connected to Paleconservatism, while Christian right is not. Not a bid deal, anyway: you can go ahead with your order. --Checco (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree theocracy is a bit too far as well. Doesn't change this is a party heavily influenced by the religious right, but they aren't arguing for anything like, say, Iran. Toa Nidhiki05 10:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "theocracy" and moved "paleoconservatism" up. As I said, I think that "fiscal conservatism" and "social conservatism" should go right after "paleoconservatism", as they are two tenets of it. "Christian right" could/should go to the fourth place. --Checco (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideologies in the infobox 

message: No "major party" starts with criticism in the opening section. This has no sense to an equitable format via an unbaised journal. Will be removing such text and reformatting to place such discussion after the identification, unless there are good answers given as to why such should stay in the opening. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Registering a continued intent to alter the opening. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Altering Opening. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: More alterations involving almost complete rewrite. Removed critcism and actually discussed the party and its intents. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening the article with Criticism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Constitution Party (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150204232743/http://constitutionpartyil.com/index.php/about-us/party-leadership to http://constitutionpartyil.com/index.php/about-us/party-leadership
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141006001443/http://www.ustpm.org:80/contact/41-contact.html to http://www.ustpm.org/contact/41-contact.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100715035202/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/5952222-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/5952222-1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140317062545/http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/12/montana-constitution-party-bolts/ to http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/12/montana-constitution-party-bolts/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120217054418/http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=294 to http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=294
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140726195022/http://www.iapn.org/officers.html to http://www.iapn.org/officers.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131110061820/http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/district/opinions/pdf/phillips.pdf to http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/district/opinions/pdf/phillips.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930215543/http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm to http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930215543/http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm to http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131112045836/http://www.timeswv.com/local/x1612551382/Independent-voters-may-request-ballot to http://www.timeswv.com/local/x1612551382/Independent-voters-may-request-ballot
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090204181044/http://www.amconmag.com:80/2004/2004_11_08/cover.html to http://www.amconmag.com/2004/2004_11_08/cover.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120216145455/http://jimgilchrist.com/blog/?page_id=3 to http://jimgilchrist.com/blog/?page_id=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203104328/http://www.standardspeaker.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7195&Itemid=2 to http://www.standardspeaker.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7195&Itemid=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111025083225/http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=40277549 to http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=40277549
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100529075205/http://politics1.com:80/const04a.htm to http://politics1.com/const04a.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205234336/http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp to http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120612060523/http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/11/09/montana/a01110906_02.txt to http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/11/09/montana/a01110906_02.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They all worked, except the 4th, 10th, 12th, 14th, and 16th archived URLs. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Constitution Party (United States). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140209001056/http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/2012-2016-platform-and-resolutions/ to http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/2012-2016-platform-and-resolutions/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ustpm.org/contact/41-contact.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100715035202/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/5952222-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns-elections/5952222-1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/12/montana-constitution-party-bolts/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060824043645/http://www.constitutionparty.com:80/news.php?aid=294 to http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=294
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930215543/http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm to http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/district/opinions/pdf/phillips.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110930215543/http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm to http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140209001056/http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/2012-2016-platform-and-resolutions/ to http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/2012-2016-platform-and-resolutions/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140209001056/http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/2012-2016-platform-and-resolutions/ to http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/2012-2016-platform-and-resolutions/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011041501/http://jimgilchrist.com:80/blog/?page_id=3 to http://jimgilchrist.com/blog/?page_id=3
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090203104328/http://www.standardspeaker.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7195&Itemid=2 to http://www.standardspeaker.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7195&Itemid=2
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101113014520/http://my.execpc.com:80/~awallace/schoolguns.htm to http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/schoolguns.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061116040533/http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp to http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140730014143/http://archive.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=123585 to http://archive.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=123585
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080918015120/http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/12/07/bnews/br76.txt to http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/12/07/bnews/br76.txt
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them were successful. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Constitution Party (United States). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120508060053/http://www.constitutionparty.com/ to http://www.constitutionparty.com/
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Constitution Party (United States). 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/20120211200123/http://www.sos.idaho.gov:80/elect/other.htm to http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/other.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824043645/http://www.constitutionparty.com:80/news.php?aid=294 to http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=294
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930215543/http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm to http://www.constitutionpartync.com/sec.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/spring/patriot-groups
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011041501/http://jimgilchrist.com:80/blog/?page_id=3 to http://jimgilchrist.com/blog/?page_id=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203104328/http://www.standardspeaker.com:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7195&Itemid=2 to http://www.standardspeaker.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7195&Itemid=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116040533/http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp to http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/11/09/montana/a01110906_02.txt
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) 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Successful, except the 5th and 6th links (jimgilchrist.com and standardspeaker.com). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution Party (United States). 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/20140525142340/http://www.cpmontana.org/ to http://www.cpmontana.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=40277549
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) 20:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Constitution Party (United States). 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/20131203005610/http://www.cpky.net/index.php to http://www.cpky.net/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118234526/http://wisconsinconstitutionparty.com/history.php?isadmin=Y to http://wisconsinconstitutionparty.com/history.php?isadmin=Y
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) 12:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Constitution Party (United States). 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/20160623180602/http://jrmyersforpresident.com/brief-history-alaska-constitution-party-acp to http://jrmyersforpresident.com/brief-history-alaska-constitution-party-acp
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) 15:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: It seems that the candidate in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_Senate_election_in_Idaho got the best result in a senate race.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.207.85 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best results 

message: Please change "Tancredo's New Home In The Constitution Party: A Paleoconservative Group" to "Tancredo's New Home In The Constitution Party: A Religious, Paleoconservative Group" in the references, the term "religious," was removed from the reference article title in an apparent WP:POV edit. 2001:8003:34A3:800:7189:687C:C16E:93B5 (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to reference  

message: Umbrella12 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023 128,914 is the registration from December 2022. 

message: Hello, The reasoning for my wish to have this specific article undeleted is because circumstances revolving around the state-affiliated party had changed. At the time the deletion process was occurring, the Constitution Party of North Carolina didn't have ballot access at that point. It wouldn't be until 2018 that they would have ballot access in the state. Furthermore, there wasn't any information that made the state-affiliated party distinct from the national party at the time. I want to be able to share that information that has developed since then in its own wikipedia page. Hope you respond soon, thanks for taking the time to read this.
Willisio (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration laws 

message: Sigh I understand this is Wikipedia so there’s a massive bias but they are only opposed to illegal immigration not giving every illegal immigrant free citizenship doesn’t mean your against ALL immigration in general 50.159.11.159 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Anti immigration”