File talk:Districts of Serbia.png

{{Editprotected}}

Please revert this image to revision of 11:22, 16 November 2013, that includes all the districts of Serbia. Nikola (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo is not part of Serbia, please accept it. --Denniss (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop writing nonsense on talk pages. Nikola (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither South Ossetia is part of Georgia ;) and neither we are politicians to talk about that and Wikipedia is not official representative of national Governments --ΝικόλαςΜπ. (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done please use File:Districts of Serbia (with Kosovo).png instead. whym (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Please revert this file back to its original as it was primarily uploaded...all wikipedia branches were using it that (original) way since then...for this reverted version create another file...
2. More importantly this way, the file is incorrect....the administrative devision of Serbia (on which this map is based) are proclaimed by Sebian law, in tune with the Serbian constitution, which explicitly says (→ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Serbia#Preamble)...so this map is WRONG....(the title on the map mentioned below this file, Serbian version, is by the essence of that what's this file about just sarcastic....)...

....therefore i call the competent to revert this file, or to delete it since it's incorrect....--Ivan VA (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done

The map is correct. Welcome to 2014. If you want a map which shows Kosovo as part of Serbia, try one of our many historic maps. Meanwhile, this map is called "Districts of Serbia", so it shows districts that are in Serbia. It does not show districts that are in other countries. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The map is incorrect...the administrative subdivisions it shows are created by the law on territorial organisation of Serbia (THATS THE SOURCE IT RELIES ON!), which was approved by the constitutional court of Serbia coz it tunes with the preamble quoted below, (among others) the articles 8, 12, 97/3, 136, the whole chapter 8 of the constitution, art. 195....and so on....

...a countries right to organize itself is a matter of INTERNAL LAW based on hierarchy of legal acts itself defines like quoted below....

...this is not a matter of your or mine political agenda on the Kosovo problem, its a matter of state/ constitutional law of a country and its legal acts....have said so, the things are pretty clear here....the maps PRIMAL AND ONLY SOURCE are the laws of that country and by them the map is INCORRECT and WRONG!, thats pretty obvious...or if not, i please you to quote me sources (acts passed by the Serbian parliament) which say that this on the map is the actual Serbian state administrative organisation...

if not...ill call someone to revert the picture, here or at the village pump....

...greetings of a political sciences student...--Ivan VA (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

As the secession of Kosovo has not found global acceptance I second the view expressed by Ivan. The other map should be renamed to "Serbia (without Kosovo)". I believe, the neutrality of WP would command this. A notion that Serbia without Kosovo would be the real Serbia would have to be supported with arguments such as decisions by the UN. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the same selective political arguments appear over and over again on so many images.

This image is a map. The first priority should be accuracy; the map should reflect real borders. To the extent that your highly selective interpretation of one particular law diverges from the real borders, you have my sympathies; it must be frustrating when the rest of the world does not fit your ideals. bobrayner (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Who is selective??? File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - Crimea disputed.svg. Thank you. OAlexander (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Good Lord! are u that unproved?...it's obvious that u have no idea about constitutional/ internal/international law!....SELECTIVE INTERPRETATION??...if u knew smth. about international/ constitutional law u should know that any international agreement made by a country as a subject of international law has to be in tune with the constitution (supreme legal acts of countries with no constit. like UK..) of that country as its supreme and top hierarchical legal act (in this case 194 art. of srb. constitution is pretty clear)...(btw the agreement that u quoted is at the constit. court atm being checked...)...or better i explain it to u, so a 7 year old can understand....

The 1st amendment of the US proclaims freedom of speech...if the US as a subject of internat. law make an agreement with another subject of int. law (country, organization..) which in any case (the agreement) rejects freedom of speech, the agreement has to be annulled (by any stance...boards for state law of congress or senate, or supreme court when checked..)....just to explain you how things work, but that is not the point on this matter...

This map is made, calling on the territorial organisation of the Republic of Serbia declared by Serbian INTERNAL LAW passed by the Serbian parliament (ofc in tune with the Serbian constitution)...this is the maps PRIMAL AND ONLY SOURCE!...the Serbian parliament DID NOT PASS any act that defines the terit. organiz. of the country SHOWN on this map!...a countries right to define its terit. organz. is a matter of internal law and thats the source ALL MAPS ON WIKI RELY AND CALL ON (for any country!) and those maps are showing that...

It also means that you and that guy Denniss who reverted this map, rashly pushing your political agendas, but obviously have no idea about state law or law at all, derogated the map by thinking that it is a political question, BUT IT IS NOT (its a matter of LAW)!..you deliberately put smth. false and incorrect on that map, replicating it on all other branches of the project, derogating the whole encyclopedia...any1 who knows smth. about law and is familiar with this matter is going to laugh when saw this....

At last, ill put some comparable example (pretty fresh one), showing what i mean (that it is a fact of INTERNAL law)...Russia, some weeks ago, made the Crimea, previously part of Ukraine, (Ukraine is internationally recognized, also as a member of the UN, in its borders with the Crimean peninsula) a part of its territorial organization (→ see here - 1st paragraph of the article and here) (not going now to name such process coz its questonable...its another debate)....so the MAPS we use (make) on wiki are based on Russian INTERNAL LAW and the Russian internal law/ legal acts for terit. organization, say that the Crimea is a part of the Russian administrative organization, even thou the INTERNATIONAL (legal) STATUS of the peninsula is clearly DISPUTED!...when showing the Russian terit. organisation, if doing so without the Crimea (ofc based on Russian laws as the PRIMAL SOURCE, like any other countries) would be FALSE and INCORRECT, coz the Russian lawmakers when did em' (the laws) only recognize/detect them WITH CRIMEA...anything others (OTHER MAP) would be incorrect coz they didn't decide so!...

...so plx, another time, before u get involved with stuff u don't know, ask for ppl. who do so, or just avoid them, would make some thing on this project a lot easier...--Ivan VA (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So, Ivan VA, you claim extensive knowledge of Serbian constitutional history. This makes the problem worse; because if so, you're deliberately misrepresenting it rather than merely being misled. At the time that Serbia conquered Kosovo (in 1912-1913), the 1903 constitution was still in force. This constitution required a Grand National Assembly before Serbia's borders could be expanded to include Kosovo; but no such Grand National Assembly was ever held. Ivan VA, did you know about this and deliberately omit it, or did you simply not know? Even if we were to base our maps on Serbian constitutional arguments - and of course we shouldn't - the map should stay as it is. This map should reflect real boundaries, not historical fantasies.

The rest of the rant about other maps and about other countries' freedom of speech can be ignored. However, I'm a sucker for accuracy, so I felt I had to correct constitutional fictions, even though they're irrelevant. By the way, you score extra points for accusing other people of having political agendas. bobrayner (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Can you answer, Ivan VA? bobrayner (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)