Diskussion:„Unerwünschte ausländische Organisationen“ in Russland

Organisation country

In other versions of this list, the organization country is the country where the organization is registered. No additional note is provided (e.g. in exile). In sake of data consistency across different language version, should the German version refrain from adding extra and subjective information regarding organization country, e.g.: "Russia (Latvia)"? --45.156.240.107 17:04, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

The list calls "foreign" NGO, but some are only by exile, not in the moment of prohibition in Russia. They were parts of Russian society before prohibition. This is not subjective but transparent by organisation's histories.--WajWohu (Diskussion) 17:19, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST) It's only a test, but without exiled organizations (esp. Novaya Gazeta or Doschd' TV) and exilied persons the list of "foreign" NGO's would be around one fifth shorter, but we may see how many % in 2 years ...--WajWohu (Diskussion) 19:05, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

In other language versions of this list, under the Country column meant place of legal registration of the organization. Such approach allows to specify the value of this column for every organization based on formal data of national organization registry without consideration of any additional background of every affected organization.

Both, Novaya Gazeta Europe and TV Rain (aka Dozhd) which appear on the list have been registered outside of Russia and formally/legally have nothing to do in common with their Russian precedors. According to the Russian legislation on undesired organizations, only foreign organizations are subject to this law, no Russian organization can be declared as an undesired organization at all, thus, I wouldn't mention Russia as an organization country, to not confuse the reader and to stay aligned with English, Russian, and Czech version of this list. The detailed history of the organization might be found on its article.

The law of undesired organizations is relevant for any organization out of Russia, not only NGOs.

Bottom line, in my opinion, the list must be 100% consistent with its other language versions, otherwise, it will bring different knowledge experience on the same data, based on user language. --45.156.240.107 20:22, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

Regarding the length of this list. The main and the major purpose of this list is to provide the full list of organizations, which are forbidden for Russian citizens to cooperate with in any form by any means (it's a subject of criminal case). Therefore, the list must stay complete and no single organization should be removed based on organization type (e.g. NGO vs. Media) or any other reason which comes from the Wiki-editor and not from the Russian authorities. --45.156.240.107 20:33, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

The list remained complete, but we also do not simply reduplicate informations from the Russian authorities because they are not very niggling about the truth, nor we are in a Russian office. The purpose of the law is to exclude undesirable media and organizations by defining them as foreign. So some genuine well-known Russian organizations and media became quickly declared as such because they have to live outside Russia afterwards, not before-as Rain TV or Novaya Gazeta. Those informations are not informations by Wiki-editors but by NGO's histories.--WajWohu (Diskussion) 21:36, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

I've just had a look on the Open Society Foundations (OSF) case. According to this article, this NGO originally comes from Russia, while in fact it's has been established in the US and Russia is just a one of the targeted regions, among of Central and Eastern Europe. Moreover, nowadays OSF operates in 37 countries, which means that it's international NGO, and not Russia-only or originally Russia. Therefore, in this case "Russland (Vereinigte Staaten)" is just misleading information. In opposite, if "Open Society Foundations (OSF)" has "Russland (Vereinigte Staaten)", then why "U.S. Russia Foundation (USRF)" doesn't have? It just brings inconsistency to the data.

Regarding the family of Khodorkovsky-related NGOs (Open Russia Civic Movement, Otkrytaya Rossia (OR), etc.). all of them have been registered initially and exclusively at the UK Companies House (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09888704), hence, it should not be marked as "Russia originally".

To summarize, I would rollback a commit, which marks some organizations as Russian-originally, while they have been originally established outside of Russia and this info just brings unnecessary data complication. For detailed information, a user can always read the article/website for the specific organization and make a conclusion. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:F056:4675:1433:3F62 21:59, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

I'll check the rest of the cases if they are similar to OSF. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:F056:4675:1433:3F62 22:27, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

Oh I'm sorry, thank you for your attention and help, it was my mistake I was in the fault line. I meant the U.S.-Russia Foundation, not the well-known Open Socienty Foundation. The OSM is a genuine American liberal NGO. But the en:Open Russia/Otkrytkaya Russia (I don't why the list if Minjust has a double entry, I've checked, but it is) was oriiginally founded in Russia 2001. the incorporation in UK companies register was in 2015. In contrast the next "Institute of Modern Russia" led by Khodorkovsky's son Pavel was founded in exile.

Since the beginning of Putin's first presidency he declared Russia threatened by foreign enemies. But the calculation in some entries are visible, which are genuine Russian. They were critical, became forced to exile and are now declared to be a part of foreign enemies. Some as Rain TV and Novaya Gazeta immediatly after forced exile. In some way we may make in transparent, I think.

Your other argument is unclear to me at the moment. Of course all those organizations and media are only registered outside Russia today, all of them, the exiled too ...--WajWohu (Diskussion) 22:44, 20. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

U.S.-Russia Foundation is also genuine American NGO, focused on Russia, but origins are 100% the US, not from Russia.

Regarding Open Russia/Otkrytkaya Russia, Minjust has a double entry because Khodorkovsky team changed its name several times according to the UK Companies House registry (there, one can find a renaming history). And it looks like, Minjust wanted to "cover" all possible names. Anyway, in this list Minjust refers to the UK's Open Russia/Otkrytkaya Russia (2015) only, not the Russian one from 2001.

> In some way we may make in transparent

I just don't think this list is a correct place to bring all this info, it makes it much more complicated, than it can be. This list just demonstrates which organizations are marked as undesirable and for the Russian citizens are forbidden to cooperate with. That's all. If we start bring more details to this table, it turns to be useless very soon. All of them have been initially registered outside of Russia, not as a subsidiary or as a branch of a Russian-based company, but as an independent entities, which are subject to the legislation of registration country.

Let's look practically, according to the proposed logic, based on data in the column "Herkunftsland/ früherer Hauptsitz (Exilland)", I, as a reader, can assume that "Medusa Project (Meduza) Russland (Lettland)" initially have been registered in Russia / had a HQ in Russia, but later has been exiled to Latvia. Which is totally wrong assumption. The only HQ Meduza ever had is located in Riga, Latvia, not Russia.

The term "Herkunftsland" points to the organization's country of origin. Bearing in mind that all of these companies have been initially registered outside of Russia, the country of origin for all of these companies can't be Russia, because they have been born outside of Russia. Similar to a natural person, if a person was born in Germany, his place of birth/country of origin is Germany, even if his parents are from other country. The same regarding "früherer Hauptsitz". Open Russia Civic Movement or Otkrytaya Rossia (OR), which Minjust refers to, never had a HQ in Russia, but in the UK. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:F056:4675:1433:3F62 02:00, 21. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

Nope, not all of them were initially registered outside Russia, esp. not Novaya Gazeta and some others, but I'm also not very convinced about that solution, maybe some words in text are better, be patient please f´ür the next days.

Bigger problems I see in the links. According to the rules of de-Wiki links to Wikis in other languages and external links link in the text are not allowed...--WajWohu (Diskussion) 17:28, 21. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

> Nope, not all of them were initially registered outside Russia

«Novaya Gazeta Europe» has nothing to do with «Новая газета» [Novaya gazeta], which operates in Russia. These are two different legal and media bodies. «Novaya Gazeta Europe» has never existed in Russia and nowadays, they even implement different formats and subjects/topics they are covering. The only common thing they have is the name.

I've checked other organizations via the LV/UK/US/NL national NGOs/Media register as well, there is no any single note that these organizations have been previously active in Russia.

Besides that, the organization country of origin is provided by the Ministry of Justice of Russia, which publishes this list, and I don't see any issue to rely on its data, because it has been taken from the official resources provided by authorities of the different countries.

>maybe some words in text are better

That's it totally OK, to mention that the organizations XYZ are originally Russian, but currently are in exile.

Of course, before writing such fact, I would reach these organizations and ask for their writent agreement with such statement. It might be that the organizations itself see the picture differently.

>Bigger problems I see in the links. According to the rules of de-Wiki links to Wikis in other languages and external links link in the text are not allowed.

It might be. I've just paid attention, that de-Wiki doesn't have articles for all these organizations, therefore I've tried to keep a link either to en-Wiki or to an official website, so end-user can easily get further information about the organization with a single click.

Anyway, it's really pity, that while RU, EN, and CZ Wiki-readers are benefiting from the well arranged and promptly updated list of the organizations, the German readers by default have an access to 27% of this list only, just due to unnecessary bureaucracy and formalism. However, in Germany this is a common practice. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:30CD:7874:D9D9:1511 19:00, 21. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

> Bigger problems I see in the links. According to the rules of de-Wiki links to Wikis in other languages.

I've replaced the en-Wiki links to de-Wiki ones, where available.

> external links link in the text are not allowed

I've checked the German Wiki-article for Germany (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland#Parteienlandschaft) and there are external links in the text in «gemäß Art. 21 GG» --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:506:9D6D:F516:2B8 23:14, 22. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

Yes, this is a formalism I do not support in every case very strictly. (Yes, we have many formalists here... seems to be very often in Germany, +1, but in some other European societies, like French society, it's not unknown ;) I'm sorry for answering late, I wanted do finish it this afternoon when I'll have more time. Now, somebody else did it (thanx), maybe I'll add something this afternoon.--WajWohu (Diskussion) 11:48, 24. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

Thanks. BTW, is there any info when de-Wiki will get a new design? --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:78A0:3A8:E0DA:E6D9 14:50, 24. Aug. 2023 (CEST)

Reference to the decision regarding any organization

@WajWohu, regarding:

> Hör mal, wir brauchen nicht jede Tass-Meldung. Die Liste ist als Nachweis komplett ausreichend. Wir sind nicht in Russland, wo jeder Bürger die Staatspropaganda inzwischen ganz genau kennen muss.

In the en-Wiki, an admin asked to provide references for organizations. To do that, I've used official sources, among of them the official Russian Mass-Media (TASS (16%), Interfax (7%)), the US-founded media (RFE/RL (14%), Svoboda, VOA (2%)), the private media (Reuters (5%), The New York Times), the German media (DW (5%)), the French media (Le Monde), the Russian media in expel (Meduza (17%), Novaya Gazeta. Europe (7%)), the Russian media inland (The Moscow Times (7%)) and many many others (AP, RSF, the US and the EU State bodies). The key principle of choosing a source were: (1) a clear information that organization «A» has been added to the list, (2) it should not be a no-name media, (3) the media is not expected to disappear in the near future. As you may see by source percentage, it's quite harmonized and with a "fair" distribution.

Since the purpose of references in this table is just provide the evidence where the data comes from, I don't see any issue with noting TASS as a source. After all, in this table we are not trying to provide a deep analysis of the phenomenon of undesired organizations (reasons, consequences, developing of the story etc.), we just want to give full, well-arranged and updated list of organizations with the references to the official source. That's all. If you prefer not to use TASS/Interfax, but another sort of «Staatspropaganda» (RFE/RL, VOA, DW), then OK, although, in this particular case, I don't see how exactly VOA/DW are better than TASS. BTW, among the references you've deleted was The Associated Press, may I know, what's wrong with the AP?

For the detailed info regarding the organization background and its activity and what led to the "undesirable" status, please see an organization wiki-article. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:78A0:3A8:E0DA:E6D9 16:16, 3. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

P.S. In sake of data and references completeness and consistency, if you want to get rid of TASS & Co. references, then, please, replace it with an alternative, with which you feel confident. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:78A0:3A8:E0DA:E6D9 16:18, 3. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

Oh, I have to apologize for that edit. I was in hurry, became distracted from outside and so I've forgotten to view your whole edit, to read the rest and not checked, how big my revert is, as I usually do. So I only perceived the tass-reference, not the rest, sorry.

(Tass is a news-agency not very far away from other national news-agencies. But between state-medias and and public medias like DW are some internal differences, esp. no financing by state, more internal autonomy of reports and no orders what to report and how to comment, like in many state-medias.)

But I still have doubts about the concept and layout of that list. Why readers in German-speaking countries may know the number and date of Minjust-Orders? And why they may know the dates of Attorney General's decision, nearby the same days or weeks (beside they can see, there's no longtime checking)? Those informations are relevant for officials in Russia, not for the rest of the world. I'm also not conviced about the necessity of writing all countries down, where they are registered actually. Many of those organizations are not "foreign" NGOs but international, f. ex. Greenpeace is no Dutch organization but international, criticising many enterprices and governments in the world, including Dutch Shell and Dutch parties and politicians. But they are only prohibited in Russia. WWF is no Swiss organization but international, neutral, only prohibited in Russia. Doschd TW (Rain TV) and Novaya Gazeta Europe are no Latvian nor Dutch organizations but exiled Russian org.s. You answered me up there, "«Novaya Gazeta Europe» has nothing to do with «Новая газета» [Novaya gazeta], which operates in Russia.", but of course they are the same team of critical journalists worked side-by-side for decades in Russia until last year (now Peace-Nobel-Winner Muratov also verdicted as "foreign agent"), corresponding for the Russian society and were founded by Russian expertise of investigative, critical journalism. The registration's places only are not enough facts to characterize them, to much formalism. When readers view that list here, they may think there's a big foreign conspiracy or a mass of hostile NGO's against Russia. But in fact most of them are neutral non-governmental organizations or even genuine Russian organizations, now exiled.

So the main goal of that list together with the "foreign-agents-list" is to shut up, to silence all independent, critical voices from bottom up to the top of the state, as we have here in Germany everywhere (not against Russia but about German politics and policy). But this may be a disadvantage for Russia's future, because nobody can say to the leaders, when they ar crashing. To make that main political goal of the 2 lists visible (by expert's analyses) is much more interesting for me than the dates of Minjust's orders, Attorney general's decisions and dates and places of (re-)registrations wherever.

So for me the Minjust's list would be enough reference to see which NGO's are there and later it ist good to explain, which NGO's they are, not all are well-known. But do we need dates and references for all the single decisions? (This is my honest question: What is the relevance of those details?) Best regards--WajWohu (Diskussion) 13:44, 4. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

IMO, noting the dates, number of decision, and the organization's country are necessary because the primary goal of this table is to reflect the decisions of the Russian Authorities and provide as much official details in a well-formed way as we can. Besides that, the country information can help to avoid confusions e.g. Free University Berlin and Brīvā Universitāte (Free University) in Riga.

What is also important, is to stay neutral and do not add our own opinion (e.g. «of course they are the same team of critical journalists worked side-by-side for decades in Russia until last year»), even if we are assured/believe that it's 100% truth. Here we are not talking about any kind of ideology, where we can develop discussion, but instead, in this brief table we just demonstrate that the organization «A», which has an official registration in the country «B» has been classified as undesirable based on decision «C» of Min. Jus. on «XYZ» date + the official reference for this row in the table. That's all. In case a reader is interested in further details, it's always possible to read a separate article about this organization, where an organization background, history etc. will be described and supported by references.

The number of decision of Mun. Jus. is also important for search engine indexing reasons, so a reader could easily find this organization based on the decision number. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:78A0:3A8:E0DA:E6D9 16:19, 10. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

But your last described goal doesn't work. Check it out, please: If you write numbers like "1148-r", "1130-r", "1129-r" etc. (with transliterated Latin-script "r" instead of Cyrillic "р") into search engines you will find literally nothing. You have to write the official Cyrillic-Russian names like "№ 925-р (от) 05.07.2023" (as you can find in the list ref 4) to find the official texts. I did it even before (not all), because I speak Russian, but the big majority of readers don't speak it. So at the moment the whole column has no benefit for the readers, I think, it is useless. And the "reasons" described in those official announcements in Russian are mostly unconcrete, vague, even topical schemes, repeated again and again. Nobody can understand, which single mistakes in Russian authority's eyes they made in particular, exactly and detailled. Their whole independent work seems to be the problem for Russian authorities, because they do not note single mistakes. (It is in sharp contrast to most of other countries in the world.)

(The description of "Novaya Gazeta Europe" as exiled media, made by former Russian investigative journalists, fled from Russia and formerly worked for "Novaya Gazeta" in Moscow is no ideology nor "non-neutral", it's simply a fact, the cause of origin. I can show you most of the biographies.)

"To reflect the decisions of the Russian Authorities and provide as much official details in a well-formed way as we can" is not really a neutral kind of work, it's even more the work of a "herald" for Russian authorities or of a official gazette. If you had not also linked the press-articles and internal and external characterizations of those NGOs, I wouldn't have accepted those edits. But I still think, there's too much official formalism, even no benefit for all readers or useless for non-Russian-speakers. This is my problem.

(The list and law in the article are itself manifestations of an actual ideology, that changed Russian polity and policy step by step in the last years. So a good, neutral article must also illuminate the purposes behind by political scientific analysis, not only repeating the details of Russian authorities decisions.) Sincerely --WajWohu (Diskussion) 15:32, 11. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

@WajWohu, the number of decision of Min. Just. has been omitted. I've also cleaned up a table, no extra acronyms, no extra references for every single row of a table. Now, the table looks much cleaner and easier to work with. The table also looks more consistent now and more reader-friendly, for those, who doesn't read cyrillic. --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:28C3:5857:8787:5D77 21:56, 18. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

Ok., thank you for your work. I would like zu add instead of "Land" better "Land der aktuellen Registrierung" (=state of present registration) for the many cases of non-governmental international org.s. Do you agree? --WajWohu (Diskussion) 22:11, 18. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

@WajWohu, regarding «Land der aktuellen Registrierung», done! --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:28C3:5857:8787:5D77 22:37, 18. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

Perfect!--WajWohu (Diskussion) 22:59, 18. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

@WajWohu, by the way, on the en-Wiki the change "Country" to "Country of present registration" has been declined as „"Country" should do fine for that column.“. In sake of consistency, and to keep it short and simple, do we really need these formal and long title? If for the en-Wiki it's clear what does this column mean, why on de-Wiki should we add extra words? --2A02:810D:13C0:3792:9863:EC59:E9CE:656B 23:45, 19. Sep. 2023 (CEST)

russische Bezeichnung fehlt

Wäre es nicht ratsam, in der Einleitung die russische Übersetzung des Lemmas anzugeben? 46.114.247.97 23:16, 22. Jan. 2024 (CET)

What do you mean exactly under "Lemmas"? --2A02:810D:13C0:26E6:EC52:B813:D2DB:F39F 22:44, 29. Jan. 2024 (CET)

"Lemma" is the name on top of the article, here: "Unerwünschte ausländische Organisationen in Russland". "Lemmas" is genitive. In de:WP it is often usual to add the name in original language in brackets in the first sentence, here like this: (russisch нежелательные иностранные организации в России).--WajWohu (Diskussion) 23:25, 29. Jan. 2024 (CET)

Erklärung zum Exil in den Abschnitt „Geschichte“ schieben

@WajWohu:, zum folgenden Text:

Unter ihnen befinden sich auch einzelne NGO und Medien, die in der russischen oder sowjetischen Gesellschaft gegründet wurden, deshalb entweder nur in weiteren Nachfolgestaaten der Sowjetunion aktiv waren, oder erst durch dieses Verbot und Ausweichung ins Exil „ausländisch“ sind, tatsächlich aber auf Russland fokussiert bleiben. Dazu gehören „Open Russia“ (russisch Открытая Россия Otkrytaja Rossija, 2014 gegründete Exilorganisation von Michail Chodorkowski), Meduza (Exil-Online-Zeitung von geflüchteten Mitarbeitern von Lenta.ru), die Stiftung für Korruptionsbekämpfung (russisch Фонд борьбы с коррупцией, ursprünglich 2011 unter Alexei Nawalny in Moskau gegründet und dort verboten, seit 2022 nur noch in Resten im Exil), Novaya Gazeta Europe (2022 von mehrheitlich ins Exil geflüchteten Journalisten der Moskauer Zeitung „Nowaja Gaseta“), TV Rain (2022 ins Exil geflüchteter TV-Sender Doschd) und andere.

Wie wäre es mit der Verschiebung der Erklärung zur Einführungsgeschichte (in Bezug auf die UdSSR, Exil usw.) in den Block „Geschichte“? Dies ermöglicht es, den Block „Betroffene Organisationen“ in den verschiedenen Sprachversionen dieser Liste klar und konsistent zu halten. (nicht signierter Beitrag von Euwed (Diskussion | Beiträge) 11:43, 15. Feb. 2024 (CET))

Ich glaube, wir haben verschiedene Vorstellungen, wozu der Artikel da ist. Nach deiner Meinung soll er einen vollständigen Überblick geben, welche Organisationen insgasamt mit diesem Gesetz verboten wurden, was ich, wie oben schon geschrieben, so höchstens für Beamte in Russland für relevant halte, nicht für Leser im deutschen Sprachraum. Nach meiner Meinung soll der Artikel auch beleuchten, warum Organisationen überhaupt als ausländische Organisationen verboten werden. Da muss der Absatz drin bleiben. Die große Mehrheit der Organisationen sind wirklich "ausländisch", bis auf die um Scientology und Falun Gong wohl fast alle Organisationen, die sich die weltweite Förderung von Demokratie, Pressefreiheit, Menschenrechten usw. ins Programm gesetzt haben. Aber es gibt eindeutig auch andere, aus Russland stammende Beispiele in der Liste. Im Grunde machen die Beispiele deutlich den Eindruck, dass das "Gesetz gegen unerwünschte ausländische Organisationen" inzwischen zu einem zweiten Repressionsinstrument nach dam Gesetz über „ausländische Agenten“ in Russland geworden ist. Ich schreib mal noch einige Ergänzungen zur Nr. 41 und Nr. 40 in der Liste dazu, bei denen hat es offensichtich nichts mit der Geschichte der Organisationen zu tun. Dann können wir nochmal überlegen.--WajWohu (Diskussion) 17:12, 15. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Weitere Informationen sind jederzeit willkommen. Stellt sich die Frage, wo sich das befinden soll? Meiner Meinung nach sollte der Block „Betroffene Organisationen“ nur die Liste der Organisationen enthalten, während die Erläuterung mit Beispielen und zusätzlichen Referenzen in einen separaten Block extrahiert werden sollte, z. B. «Motivation zur Aufnahme in die Liste». --Euwed (Diskussion) 22:55, 15. Feb. 2024 (CET)

@Euwed: Das ist eine gute Idee, so können wir das machen, ein eigenes Kapitel "Motivation/Gründe der Aufnahme in die Liste". Grüße--WajWohu (Diskussion) 09:52, 16. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Genau, damit jeder Block des Artikels einem einzigen Zweck dient. --Euwed (Diskussion) 10:04, 16. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Ich habe den entsprechenden Textblock in den neuen Abschnitt „Gründe der Aufnahme in die Liste“ extrahiert. --Euwed (Diskussion) 10:13, 16. Feb. 2024 (CET)

Lemma

Wir haben die Kategorieumbenennungsanfrage Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Kategorien/Diskussionen/2024/Februar/27#Kategorie:In_Russland_als_„Unerwünschte“_registrierte_Organisation_nach_Kategorie:Unerwünschte_ausländische_Organisation_in_Russland, siehe auch die dortige Vordiskussion. Das Problem ist das Lemma diese Hauptartikels "Unerwünschte ausländische Organisationen in Russland". Die hier geführten Organisationen sind natürlich in hohem Maße erwünscht: Nur eben nicht vom Regime selbst. Wir übernehmen mit dem Lemma völlig unkritisch den russischen Propagandabegriff. Zumindest müsste deutlich gemacht werden, dass es sich nicht um ein deskriptives Lemma sondern um das Wording des Regimes handelt, z.B. „Unerwünschte ausländische Organisationen“ in Russland.--Karsten11 (Diskussion) 17:30, 5. Mär. 2024 (CET)

@Karsten11: Ich bin mit den „“ um „Unerwünschte ausländische Organisationen“ einverstanden, zumal, wie aufgezeigt, nicht alle wirklich „ausländisch“ sind und die Wortwohl auch das paranoide Wording der Putin-Regierung gegen ein irgendwie feindliches, einheitlich handelndes „Ausland“ transportiert. Gruß--WajWohu (Diskussion) 19:45, 6. Mär. 2024 (CET)

Genauso machen wir das z.B. in Gesetz über „ausländische Agenten“ in Russland. Wenn bis zum Sonntag keine anderen Meinungen kommen, werde ich verschieben.-Karsten11 (Diskussion) 18:08, 8. Mär. 2024 (CET)