Talk:Russian foreign agent law

Was the Foreign Agent Restriction Act an inspiration for the Agent law?
Does someone know something about it?--Edward Zeiss (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Parallel US-Law under "see also" deleted
I inserted:


 * USA: Foreign Agents Registration Act

It was immediately deleted.

Just for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.44.239 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

---

This is curious. Really, without the link article looks somewhat biased. I dare to add this link back with a little explanation. Please if for some reason it is unwanted, add the motivation here.

Rodion Gork (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

NGO abbreviation is not explained
The article uses "NGO" abbreviation, without explaining or linking it to anything. This makes the article looking poorly prepared. NGO may stand for "non-governmental organizations" - though Russian law in question is about "Non-Commercial Organizations" or "NKO" in Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion Gork (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Created table

 * An organization that has been designated as a foreign agent can be looked up here: 

Wikedneeded (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

POV tag
I added the POV tag today, as I believe the article gives undue weight to defenders of the law and insufficient weight to the universal international condemnation, resulting in a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I'm also concerned that the notable cases list may be an attempt to "name and shame" opposition groups that have had the foreign agent label slapped onto them, particularly as some of the text seems to be loaded. Jr8825 •  Talk  10:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * According to page stats, a very large amount of content was added between July–September 2021 by the Novosibirsk-based IP, which also added substantial content to various other Russian politics topics. These edits collectively account for approximately one third of the current article. , who was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet, is also a major contributor to the Notable persons section, and authored approximately one ninth of the current content. Does the content look substantially worse than this version, the last before either of these users started editing the article? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 07:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * thanks for spotting this. I'll have a look through the diffs on Wednesday and let you know. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In this message, I’m replying to you both.


 * I’m surprised you believe the current version of the article gives undue weight to defenders of the law and insufficient weight to the universal international condemnation. I don't see anything that could be regarded as a "defence of this law" at all. Also I think you’re wrong if you really see in notable cases list "an attempt to "name and shame" opposition groups". I myself am dissident, I have the friend who works in one of the organizations labeled as "foreign agents" by Russian authorities, and I will try to explain my side of the story.


 * I believe that English Wikipedia describes current political processes in Russia insufficiently detailed. The lack of attention to details contributes to failure to recognize the true man-eating nature of these processes. It looks very strange, when you cite examples of criticism of the phenomenon but not describe this phenomenon by itself; such approach may seem manipulative and could cast doubts on readers about cited criticism. That is why Russian opposition groups themselves always draw attention to these legal details.


 * Until recently, I was a lawyer (I had to leave my legal practice due to occupational burnout that pushed me to the conclusion that a continuation the practice is pointless in the present circumstances), so I think I know something about Russian laws and enforcement practices and I’m able to describe the legal (or rather illegal) mechanism of Putin’s repressive acts.


 * Now let me proceed to make a review of separate points:


 * 1. The article is devoted to the law (legislative act). It means this article should give an idea how this law works. I've added the section “Varieties of "foreign agents"” to the article in order for readers to comprehend the preposterous and repressive nature of this law conflicted with international law and common sense (for example, it's remarkable that Russian authorities attach transboundary nature to this law, using the "foreign agent" label for foreign media even it doesn’t have branches or representative offices in Russia, as was the Meduza case). The readers should understand that everybody regardless citizenship and residence are covered under this law, and serious criminal sanctions are provided for violation of this law.


 * 2. As for notable cases, I identified specific details that were used as a basis for designation natural and juridical persons as "foreign agents" by Russian authorities. In this case, I was guided by the same goal - to demonstrate the repressive nature of this law. For example, I wrote that Russian independent TV-channel Dozhd was included in the list of "foreign agents" due to Lev Ponomaryov's participation in the TV-broadcast (it clearly illustrates that in Russia it's better to not contact with persons labeled as "foreign agent", otherwise you run a risk of also becoming one of them - therein lies the real purpose of Russian authorities). Also I used as an example the Anti-Corruption Foundation, which was designated as "foreign agent" due to small money transfers from some Spanish provocateur; and the fact the Anti-Corruption Foundation gave the money back immediately has not caused any changes in the position of Russian authorities. These details are important because it demonstrate the kafkaesque reality of modern Russia.


 * 3. I’ve added the position of the Venice Commission of 6 July 2021 in the text of the article. I consider this document is the key in the criticism of the law because this document was made by the group of highly qualified lawyers and it is legal conclusion, not political opinion.


 * In general, I think current version of the article is better than previous, although it’s not perfect. I would remove the section “'Undesirable organizations' law” because the article includes see also link to separate article devoted to the Russian undesirable organizations law. Also, I would remove the section “Media law” because this law is already described in the subsection “Foreign media” of the “Varieties of "foreign agents"”. Also, I would add the description of degrading conditions in which natural persons labeled as “foreign agent” are forced to live (separate section is needed).


 * If you have a specific questions you may ask me. But it should not be the "like-dislike" kind of conversation. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to look into this. I'll try and have a look soon. Jr8825  •  Talk  15:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jr8825 Renat  16:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jr8825 Renat  16:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminders, it's genuinely appreciated! Will take a look in the next day or so. Jr8825  •  Talk  18:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so following through on this I agree with the IP that their edits have mostly added helpful detail, and I don't think my initial concerns were the result of their changes. Looking more carefully at the article, it's not as bad in terms of false balance as my initial skim read led me to think, it was the previous lead in particular which gave equal weight to the law's defenders in 2012 as it did to the widespread criticism. I've taken a stab at rewriting the lead. I think it's still in a poor shape overall and there's lots of scope for improvement. Also, the "foreign agents" section needs to be reworded so there isn't a really long section header, which messes up the contents list. I'll remove the POV tag and keep working on improvements over the medium term. Jr8825  •  Talk  18:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Logo of International Memorial.svg

The article should be rewritten
The article should be rewritten completely taking into account the fact that initially this law was de facto a group of laws contained the different amendments into other laws, and only since 14 July 2022 (the date of signing) or rather since 1 December 2022 (the date of entry into force) there is one single codified act. The practice of applying the law was also changed, because since 1 December 2022 there is one single register of "foreign agents" which replaced several earlier registers. K8M8S8 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)