QUOTE(guy @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:30pm)
QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Sun 13th July 2008, 10:26pm)
Would that be "in America -- for example"?
If you wish. Obviously it would make equally little sense in Uzbekistan. However, I believe that there will be more readers of the English Wikipedia in America.
Ah, yes... but what do you mean by "America"? Both continents plus the central bit? North America (and is that just the USA and Canada, or are you including Mexico?) only or simply the United States of America. See, if you put the dispute over British Isles (which include the Isle of Man - but not the Channel Isles) in a context of removing everything that is declared "American" - like the recent FA regarding REM, since do they play Peruvian nose flutes - because it is "incorrect" terminology you might see how a supposed rule applying motive is just a means to advance a political viewpoint.
The irony is, of course, that "Britain" is not a English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh concept anyway - but a Roman derived continental terminology regarding the once similarity of southern ''English" (for want of a better term) to the Celts of Breton. The British Isles were the Island group of the Breton type peoples - which, being Celt, would have included Ireland, Wales and Scotland (and Cornwall/Kernow for all you Celtic Nations folks). Britain, as a political ethnic grouping, only became apparent with the merging of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland - wherin the tribal backgrounds were mixes of Celts, Angles, Picts (and Scots), Saxons, Danes, and various other immigrants/invaders. Ireland, even with major populations of Pictish Scottish and Danish/Swedish Viking ancestory, was possibly the most "British" (ie. Celtic) of all the old kingdoms, principalities and Dukedoms, so it is amusing to have a Irish editor attempting to remove "imperialist/oppressor" links when it could be argued his nation is the most truly British Isle of all.