Talk:Statistical regions of Serbia

NUTS hoax
The Serbian NUTS table is a hoax. I can understand why some editors are really keen to insert this content, because it treats Kosovo as part of Serbia, but it's not real. I challenged this but Whitewriter never replied. Another side to the POV-pushing is that even though the table blatantly contradicts what reliable sources say, it gets added nonetheless; but when I try making other wholly factual additions which don't fit the kosovo-is-serbia mindset, they get reverted. Even when I point out on a talkpage that content is incompatible with sources, that gets reverted by a sock. bobrayner (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Serbia is not shown on the latest NUTS map here
 * Serbia is not mentioned in the 2010 NUTS catalogue here
 * Serbia is not mentioned in the latest update to NUTS, here.
 * This list of non-EU countries using NUTS does not mention Serbia.
 * Why do Antidiskriminator and WhiteWriter repeatedly reinsert hoaxes? bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hold on. The NUTS-1 division is supposed to be official, at least on the internal Serbian level. It is published in
 * Now, I'm not sure whether the government of Serbia has prerogatives to proclaim NUTS without sanctioning from the EU. I suppose not, particularly as it affects the Kosovo status. But it is not a "hoax". The paper
 * states in the abstract that "NUTS 1 and NUTS 3 classification are less applicable in Serbia due to inadequate institutional support, lack of political will or the high costs of regionalization" [...] "According to NUTS 1 classification, regional division is theoretically possible in Serbia. Having in mind that NUTS 1 classification purports territories of 3 to 7 million inhabitants in size, Serbia could only theoretically be divided into two regions: Northern and Southern Serbia."
 * That sort of contradicts the very words of the Government's bylaw, which predates the paper for at least a year. It would probably be fair to describe the Serbian NUTS-1 classification as only an initiative (or wishful thinking, if you like). I can find several papers and reports, but all of them from Serbia, referencing the said statistical regions. This paper by ESPON (p.7) from March 2011 discusses the possibility to include Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, BiH and Kosovo into NUTS nomenclature, and mentions the said bylaw at pp.25-26:
 * "In 2009, the Serbian parliament adopted the Law on Equal Territorial Development that formed seven statistical regions on the territory of Serbia. The Law was amended on 7 April 2010, so that the number of regions was reduced to five [...]According to the above, the statistical regions and their NUTS codes are: RS: Serbia RS1: Serbia - North [...] RS2: Serbia - South [...]As we have mentioned, the statistical NUTS1 and NUTS2 regions created by the government in order to meet the NUTS criteria as well as the requirements of the EU regional policy, do not have actually a considerable administrative power; also, they are not self-governed entities. The political criterion prevailed for their creation."
 * Hope that clears some issues. No such user (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your hard work.
 * I think the implications for Kosovo's status help explain why editors treated this obscure proposal as though it were a real thing. They aren't real NUTS regions, and can't be, on multiple levels; but instead of being framed as some kind of obscure unilateral government proposal, it was treated as a real EU activity, across various pages, along with some other content forking:
 * Local administrative unit:
 * Southern Serbia (NUTS 1):
 * Northern Serbia:
 * Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics:
 * Statistical regions of Serbia: (note that when I changed the map caption from "Map of NUTS 2 statistical regions of Serbia" to "Map of statistical regions used by the Serbian government" it got reverted three times)
 * NUTS of Serbia:
 * "Hoax" still looks like a pretty good description. And when I tried raising the problem on a talkpage, it got reverted by a sock. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great discussion here. Unfortunately, action lacking. I have made two articles, split, with clear distinguish between the two: statistical regions and NUTS Serbia regions.-- AirWolf  talk  04:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Hoax" still looks like a pretty good description. And when I tried raising the problem on a talkpage, it got reverted by a sock. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great discussion here. Unfortunately, action lacking. I have made two articles, split, with clear distinguish between the two: statistical regions and NUTS Serbia regions.-- AirWolf  talk  04:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)