Talk:Open Russia

December 2015
thank you for the recent edits. You greatly improved the page. However, I have one concern. In the lead, it appears we disagree on the inclusion of "originally" to the sentence regarding its first founding. I believe it is merited since readers might be confused about its founding history, which essentially has two separate years. What are your thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought that "established" covered that concept. The next sentence states that it was closed later, then re-launched. If someone reads both sentences, and it is reasonable to expect them to do so, there is no ambiguity. "Establish" is not being used here for more than one event -- it was only established once, so a modifier is redundant. Regards, Ground Zero &#124; t 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs editing
As is the case with the other Khodorovski-related articles, this one suffers from non-encyclopedic POV content. To wit, check these repeated primary non-RS refs for Russian government's prosecution and the adulatory prose:

... title =OPEN RUSSIA ONLINE FORUMS| work =Khodorkovsky| date =Feb 12, 2015| url =http://www.khodorkovsky.com/open-russia-announces-second-online-forum/}} ... cite web| title =Open Russia Announces Second Online Forum| work =Khodorkovsky| date =Oct 22, 2014| url =http://www.khodorkovsky.com/open-russia-announces-second-online-forum/}}< /ref>

-> Please fix it, to make it look more encyclopedic. Zezen (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok will look into it after the new year. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle as per your promise, please explain your reverts of my attempts at NPOV-ing it. Remember about WP:OWN. Zezen (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for responding. I know it can seem like such, but I am doing my best to not assume ownership. My main concern was a mass removal. I will address this problem soon and hopefully we can reach an agreement that exises as little as possible. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you have not explained the revert in detail, nor cooperated by working on my version after a further 3 days' wait, despite the two promises as per above. I am restoring the cleaned-up version then, which I deem NPOV.