Talk:Open Russia

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Politics: Political parties C‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

December 2015

@Ground Zero: 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)[reply]

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 | t 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ~~