Talk:Leith, North Dakota

message: Is this really necessary?  Isn't there some standard on wikipedia about historical relevancy?  I don't see how one guy moving into town and buying up plots is at all relevant.  I think it's just because he has a controversial opinion is why.  I'm sure there are plenty of other people buying up plots elsewhere for whatever reason, except they don't get mentioned because certain people are not opposed to their opinions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.249.71 (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it's the best-known thing about Leith nowadays. We need not approve of, or disapprove of, these people, in order to see that Leith is as obscure as most other towns its size, except for this bizarre bit of history; you may compare its brush with fame to that of Forks, Washington. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary reason it belongs in the article is that this subject matter has been in national news.  I would prefer the text for the section be thinned down to the most important information.  I'm neutral on the subject matter, just like Wikipedia is suppose to be.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are ways of thinning that section down that don't involve completely removing all mention of the Duttons, you know (there are seven of 'em! Seven! Enough so that the town is now 1/3 white supremacist....isn't that notable?) FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Start a new article, then make it as long as you want.  This article is primarily about the "City of Leith"...not every little detail of recent events.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much information about the white supremists in this article.  If you want to list every detail, then do it in another article!  I'm considering "pulling out my axe" to thin it down.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinned down the history section. This article should have a brief high-level summary instead of a bunch of details.  The details need to be put in some other article, like Craig's article.  The approach is no different that other major news stories, for example see Newtown, Connecticut of how there is a brief summary in the city article about the school shooting.  Please fix / clarify / minor expansion, but please don't add a bunch of text.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the White Supremist section really needed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Leith, North Dakota. 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/20150522132816/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014-3.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2014/SUB-EST2014-3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721034521/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST13&prodType=table to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_PL_GCTPL2.ST13&prodType=table
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/699nOulzi?url=http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt to http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
*Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
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) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The Grant County commission subsequently cleared the way for a referendum on July 23, 2018 on dissolving the city.[12][13] However, due to concerns that the original date was earlier than Century Code (state statutes) permitted, the vote was moved to November 6, the day of the 2018 midterm elections.[14]" And the result of the vote was...? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just seeing this. I emailed the county auditor/treasurer a few years ago, and the vote for dissolution failed with 9 voting yes and 10 voting no. Unfortunately, I was not given any print-out or anything to document it, so I can't add this information to the article. Did the local paper report the results, maybe? I wasn't ever able to find any online media. Criticalthinker (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 referendum