“atlanticist” - the culture of the enlightenment and the good that’s come from it.
Wikipedia does hold ideals, that access to knowledge is a net good, that people can cooperate both in contribution and review without a dominating magisterial authority. That rational dialogue and qualification and refinement is possible, and that it’s possible to correct for bias, and see the difference between bias and agenda.
Like those whose anti-enlightenment agenda is revealed when they use “atlanticist” as a slur.
No. One can beleive in the enlightenment ideals without placing north america, europe, and the relations between them as the most important thing.
For example - one could argue (quite successfully) that the US and Europe propping up dictators in south america and middle east to secure easy access to oil against the wishes and election results of those nations is opposed to many enlightenment ideals, but it is still atlanticism by prioritizing north american and european relations and preservation of values within their little bubble.
Also, just because there was much good resulting from enlightenment thinking, we also got things like the slave trade, the belgian congo, various genocides and so on from it... all of which are pretty bad.
The very notion that the enlightenment had all the answers and that there is nothing more to improve or learn is itself anti-enlightenment.
(I know there were abolitionists in the enlightnement,and examples of people opposed to all the other bad ideas i mentioned, but there are plenty of people who "rationally" argued for them too)
"The slave trade" refers to the transatlantic slave trade, not slavery in general. (Though I would question whether that really qualifies as a "product of the enlightenment": post hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that.)
Is there another public source for encyclopedia-type articles that is better for geopolitical content? For example, if I have a philosophy question I'll often consult the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy instead of Wikipedia.
If there isn't a more neutral public source -- if there are only sources with different biases, or if the better sources are behind paywalls -- then I think that Wikipedia is still doing pretty well even for contentious geopolitical topics.
Usually disputes are visible on the Talk page, regardless of whatever viewpoint may prevail in the main article. It can also be useful to jump back to years-old revisions of articles, if there are recent world events that put the subject of the article in the news.
Apart from Wikipedia, speaking more generally, I think that articles with a strong editorial bias still provide useful information to an alert reader. I can read articles from Mother Jones, Newsmax, Russia Today, the BBC, Times of India, etc. and find different political and/or geopolitical slants to what is written about and how it is reported. I can also learn a lot even when I strongly disagree with the narrative thrust of what is reported. The key thing is to take any particular article or publication as only circumstantial evidence for an underlying reality, and to avoid falling into complacency even when (or especially when) the information you're reading aligns with what you already believe to be true.
I know sometime around Trump's first presidency, in Bill Clinton's Wikipedia entry, under the Impeachment section they added in a picture of Trump and Clinton shaking hands, apropos of nothing in the surrounding text.
Wikipedia has been the proto-Reddit for a long time, that is, it was relatively easy for ideological bubbles to manufacture the Chomskyian Consent, just by being early adopters.
As such it rapidly developed into heavily biased page, as Wikipedia‘s co-founder Larry Sanger keeps pointing out.
It helps if you are proficient in multiple languages so you can at least „hop“ between the (some) bubbles. But the gatekeeping is always there.
There is no "intelligence" in LLMs; they're text predictors. As far as I can tell the whole LLM technology has limited applications in entertainment and that's about it. "Hallucinations" (even that term is problematic, as it suggests there's an actual consciousness/person, or the seed of one, there) as well as other "failures" - in fact features inherent to how the tech works - make it irrelevant for basically all other use cases.
Tech as an industry already had an atrocious reputation but the moment the insanely stupid "AI" bubble pops I suspect it'll get much worse. Ultimately it's pretty deserved, though. At this point the bullshit is so strong one almost wishes for a new AI winter.
I agree, ESR certainly does spout a lot of slanderous, racist, misogynistic, and homophobic drivel. That and attacking RMS is basically his whole schtick.
Truth is a complete defense to a claim of slander, and ESR's own words provide that proof and defense for everyone who rightly calls him racist, misogynistic, and homophobic. Words so vile and lurid that people have actually begged Thomas Ptacek to stop posting them to twitter, and donated over $30,000 to charity just to not hear ESR's own words quoted.
>Raymond has claimed that "Gays experimented with unfettered promiscuity in the 1970s and got AIDS as a consequence", and that "Police who react to a random black male behaving suspiciously who might be in the critical age range as though he is an near-imminent lethal threat, are being rational, not racist."[30][31] A progressive campaign, "The Great Slate", was successful in raising funds for candidates in part by asking for contributions from tech workers in return for not posting similar quotes by Raymond. Matasano Security employee and Great Slate fundraiser Thomas Ptacek said, "I've been torturing Twitter with lurid Eric S. Raymond quotes for years. Every time I do, 20 people beg me to stop." It is estimated that, as of March 2018, over $30,000 has been raised in this way.[32]
And jailbreak that Kindle and install KOReader on it, too; now it supports epub in a much more awesome reader app (not to mention having the capability to install any gtk app - I have a term emulator with ssh on mine, among others). And you're now root and can remove the amazon crap for real, no need to use airplane mode after that.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt you're not trolling, it seems you're laboring under the belief that, say, "2C of warming" means it'll always be 2C hotter where people live.
It does not. It means the mean will be at +2C. At this level of warming, we'd see crazy +15C / -15C swings regularly in many areas, often in a matter of days. It means plants that have started growing in earnest suddenly are in the midst of serious frost, killing them (something we're already seeing in my country in the EU, regularly). It means potentially many climate tripwires being triggered, too.
+2C is hell for tens, possibly hundreds of millions of people. And we're likely not stopping there.
I'm serious. People live and survive in places with conditions that i would consider uninhabitable. If dissent is trolling to you, reconsider your ideas.
I challenge you to back up the +15C / -15C numbers.
At 4C of heating, you cannot grow food in any reasonable quantity with any reliability, period. 4C is the collapse of modern civilization at the very least (in fact likely earlier due to increased geopolitical instability and tensions due to dwindling resources, combined with the availability of nuclear weapons), with a massive die-off of humans along with it.
We're at +1.5C, more or less, and growing the usual grapes in France - of all places - is already becoming much harder (they keep dying of frost after waking up due to wild temperature swings).
At +5C, there is no growing food in any substantial amount outside of high tech, low yield approaches; approaches that depend on complex planetary supply chains (both for initial deployment and maintenance), which will have disappeared by then.
> At +5C, there is no growing food in any substantial amount outside of high tech,
It seems you have some specific geographic region in mind. Earth has a lot of regions that are more than 5C colder than the most fertile regions.
People adapt. People move. Sometimes they fight wars about it. This has happened many times before.
We're currently living it the most peaceful, prosperous and safest period that humanity has ever experienced. (Despite what social media is tricking our brains into believing). In the future we will surely live through periods that are closer to the average. But I'm not seeing any extinction-level events due to climate change within the next few hundred years.
AGI or nukes, on the other hand, they both DO have the potential to end us as a species.
You seem to think that a couple of degrees just applies uniformly across the planet, or to a specific location, transforming somewhere cold into something which is now suddenly hospitable. That isn't how climate change works. It doesn't mean that Canada will suddenly be nice and balmy year-round; it means that the climate will fluctuate more wildly and wreak havoc on our agriculture, as described in the comment above. The temperature change is a global average, and your local experience is going to be a lot worse at the extremes.
> You seem to think that a couple of degrees just applies uniformly across the planet
I don't believe that at all. I even studied the IPCC for how their various scenarios lead to different levels of increased heat in different places.
When it comes to fluctuations, there are several types. An obvious one is wind, which will probably become noticeably more chaotic with more energy. Another is temperature.
Temperature variations generally depend on humidity and wind. As winds get stronger, that in isolation leads to some increase in temperature variations.
For humidity (both at ground level and in the atmosphere), increased humidity leads to lower temperature variations.
There are also precipitation. Higher temperatures lead to heavier rain (when it rains), and can increase the likelihood of hailstorms.
There are also extreme weather patterns that become more common when it gets colder. While tropical storms and hurricanes increase in frequency in hot weather, more laminar storms ("winter gales") get more common when the weather is colder. I believe this is because the LACK of turbulence/chaos means there are fewer factors that can break up such storms.
This last type is common in places like Canada, Scandinavia or Siberia now, and come almost exclusively during winter.
Btw, the impact of increased temperature on weather is something that we can already observe on Earth today, simply by travelling between different weather zones. While SOME of the extra energy can affect areas far away from where the heating occurs, a lot of the effects are local or regional.
That means that it's likely that Temperate Zone type weather is going to shift a bit to the North, and include a greater proportion of Canada, Scandinavia and Russia. These areas will then get weather more similar to places like the US/German/China today.
The southern parts of the temperate zone is likely to see weather patterns that resemble tropical (or desert) weather zones. Much of the US can be more like Mexico, France can be more like Morocco or Greece, Sothern China more like Thailand, and so on.
This means that areas that get warmer AND dryer (like Spain, Italy and France, probably) will get some of the variations currently seen in Sahara.
But it doesn't mean that the temperature fluctuations get greater everywhere. Some areas become more humid, and that means lower fluctuations.
Btw, for humans, dryer weather can be an advantage, since it allows us to dissipate heat much more easily. For farming it's less ideal. Places like Saudi Arabia could go in the opposite direction, with higher humidity and more rain, farming could become easier, but the risk of wet bulbs could also go up.
Anyway, while it is true that more energy in the atmosphere ON average increases the frequency of most types of extreme weather, it is not true that it will increase all types of extreme weather everywhere.
Ok, but I fail to see why we would want to increase extreme weather on average? Like, if we happen to make some part of the planet a little better for agriculture by accident, while ruining the rest of it, how is that a good thing?
Do you actually believe people think the warming is a good thing?
People want to drive their car, heat or aircon their house, go an vacation and use or consume all sorts of products that require energy to produce.
And even just scrolling facebook means a lot of energy is used in some data center.
This has side effects. Most cars will spew poisonous gas out the back, into the city where people live. Some of them die from those fumes, most don't. People still drive cars, because they think the benefits outweigh the costs.
"5C warmer" doesn't mean a uniform increase in temperature of 5 degrees at all times. It means "5 * the thermal mass of the earth's biosphere" worth of extra energy in an extremely chaotic system that is currently in a local stable point, but doesn't have to stay there.
Just to clarify. The reason I didn't respond to this one:
> "5C warmer" doesn't mean a uniform increase in temperature of 5 degrees at all times.
Is because I thought it was completely obvious that this is correct. I've seen that several responses thought I ignored and argued that 5C warming would be the same everywhere, while what I meant by "5C warming" was "the effect of a global 5C warming".
What I DID think was the main message was this one:
> It means "5 * the thermal mass of the earth's biosphere" worth of extra energy in an extremely chaotic system that is currently in a local stable point, but doesn't have to stay there.
While I agree that a "5C global warming scenario" may mean that the average temperature in Lyon, and even that the VARIANCE of the temperature IN LYON may go up quite a lot, I did have objections with the hypothesis that the chaos would be the main factor leading to variations in temperature.
While, for the global average, increased energy in the atmosphere may lead to SOME increase in the variation in temperature, I don't think that variations in temperature depends nearly as much on the energy in the atmosphere as other types of extreme weather, such as hurricanes, heavy rain, hail storms etc. (And effects of those, such as destroyed crops, damage to property or flooding).
Changes in humidity seems to be a much greater factor in the variability of temperature than this extra energy has.
If you check the IPCC projections for changes in precipitation patters, maximum and minimum yearly temperatures, you will find that in areas where precipitation is expected to increase, the minimum yearly temperature goes up a LOT more than the maximum yearly temperature goes up, especially so in the sub-arctic part of Eurasia (like Siberia).
Meanwhile, in areas that are expected to get dryer (including Spain, France and Italy), the minimum yearly temperature hardly increases at all, while the maximum temperature goes up a lot more than the global average.
Basically this means that some vineyards in France, Italy and Spain may have to move to more robust crops, like maybe olives. But it also means that new areas open up that may become more favorable to vineyards, for instance in Germany, Poland or even southern Sweden.
A 5C warming is indeed likely to make a few areas uninhabitable. I'm not saying climate change is not a problem. I'm just saying it's not an extinction event.
But keep in mind that the areas that tend to get the greatest warming tend to be the dry ones. In such places, sweating will still allow human bodies to regulate body heat, if air conditioning breaks down.
From a different comment whose main thrust you also ignored (you are all over this thread with the same fallacy):
>It doesn't mean it's locally always +5C warmer than it used to be; it means you're seeing insane temperature swings in a matter of days, constantly - in both directions, it just so happens that the average is +5C.
"Wild temperature swings" is already quite common in dry places. Sahara can be below freezing during the night. The IPCC predicts that Southern Europe will get dryer, so they will have larger variations.
More humid areas, especially if they're near coasts tend to be a lot more stable.
I think these tendencies will remain true.
While introducing more energy to the atmosphere is likely to generate more winds (including hurricanes), it doesn't seem plausible to me that (given constant humidity) this will be enough to cause enough variation in temperature to make farming impossible in most places.
If you have some reference (preferably something like IPCC, as opposed to something that could be fringe), I would be willing to reconsider.
> you are all over this thread with the same fallacy
Maybe you could state exactly what fallacy you think I'm advocating for? I'm not saying global warming is something good and that we don't need to worry about.
I just don't think it's a likely extinction level threat, like an asteroid, rogue AI, nuclear war, an alien invation etc. Unlike those others, it's almost certain that we will experience some degree of global warming, but if that's the worst we will face, humanity will survive as a species.
Also, there is a couple of other factors:
First of all, I think many that worry about climate change (beyond those who honestly think it will lead to extinction) really care mostly about all the pain and suffering that global warming could bring at some point, at least to some large minority of humanity. Maybe also that it will cause a non-trivial fraction of the population to die from famine, wet bulbs etc.
I don't think that's impossible (though maybe a bit pessimistic, see below), but I think the fallacy that the these people make, is to assume that we will have a future world without such events. Historically, we have seen that bad things have happend from time to time.
The collapse of the Roman Empire caused half the population to die off (partly due to colder weather). The Black Death caused a similar percentage to perish in many place. The Mongol conquests resulted in large parts of the Eurasian steppes to be so depopulated that they still haven't recovered. Then the were the world wars, Bronze Age collapse, and the list goes on.
The future is likely to bring similar events, too. Climate change could possibly be such an event. But usually, these events are not those we expect, but rather some kind of Black Swan that surprises everyone.
The second fallacy that some climate change fanatics seem to ignore, and this one by choice, it seems: We're still very much in a kind of exponential technological development. 200 years is a very long time, and unless the technological development suddenly grinds to a complete halt, we will have a lot of new options both when it comes to minimizing global warming and also to survive any warming we're not able to prevent.
People seem to choose to ignore this based on a better-safe-than-sorry philosophy. That's ok when dealing with risk that we aim to reduce to zero, as long as the cost is low. Kind of putting on a seatbelt when driving.
What many don't seem to realize, is that this is a luxery belief / first world concern. For someone less privileged, like most countries in South Asia or Africa (and also working class people in the west), access to cheap energy now is seen as really important. That means for such people, some risk is acceptable.
Kind of like if the seatbelt on your car is broken, and the nearest grocery store is 20 km away. Do you walk there, or do you drive the car regardless. To do that risk evaluation, you want to know the real risk of driving without the seatbelt.
Similarly, for those most affected short term by for instance ending most fossil fuel use, the REAL risk associated with global warming is relevant.
And to evaluate that, it's actually really relevant to factor in that humanity is likely to grow a lot in technological capability to face new challenges over the next 100-300 years. How much is a matter of opinion, but zero is unreasonable.
As far as I can tell, the most likely scenario is that Climate Change is going to be a challenge for humanity. My best guess is that in most places on Earth, people will find ways to deal with this challenge. But I'm open for the possibility that 100s of millions might die because of it.
I also realize that global warming could be a factor leading up to a nuclear war. I really don't think it would be the main factor, though. I consider nuclear war as a separate risk category.
Most wars are caused by nationalism or religious conflicts, especially betwen the kinds of countries that are likely to have large arsenals. The obvious current example is Ukraine. It's not a famine that drives Putin, it's a desire to Make Russia Great Again.
Compared to reasons such as nationalism, religion or even ideological conflicts, I think global warming would be a significantly smaller risk factor in terms of how it increases the risk of global war.
Another huge uncertainty is the what population Earth will have in the future. Already, it's pretty clear that the population in most developed parts of the world is going to decline rapidly over at least the next 50 years. Population growth is mostly restricted to South Asia and Africa now, and even in South Asia there are indications that it's going down.
It's certainly possible that this can be reversed completely, but if the current trend continues (and assuming Africa also has this trend eventually), the population could be halved every century. That means we will be only 1 billion by 2300.
On the other hand, if the trend reverses back to exponential population growth, we may be up to 30 billion or so by 2300 (unless prevented by starvation).
This is a huge gap! With only 1 billion, it would be far easier both to minimize global warming and to survive it. With 30 billion, it would be very difficult to prevent global warming and also much harder to deal with it when it comes.
And all of this hinges on us being unable to develop AGI/ASI this century. Which is starting to seem unlikely. Most of the researches in the field seem to expect AGI some time in the range from "within 5 years" to "several decades".
If we DO develop AGI before 2100, the exact circumstances around it is going to matter way more than global warming. At the optimistic end, AGI may find ways to completely end global warming.
Or it could cause human extinction before it matters.
So it's not that I don't "believe" in global warming. I generally accept the scientific consensus in most fields, as long as the field actually uses something like the scienific method, and is not just a cover for some ideology.
It's just that it seems to me that many "True Believers" in climate change turn it into something more similar to a religion than the actual science it's based on. And that this causes them to only see this single issue, while generally ignoring almost all other risk factors we're likely to face in the future.
Stability in a chaotic system is precarious. Changes, even if small or seemingly trivial, can cause massive cascading effects from positive/negative feedback loops.
Sigh, I don’t mean to sound like a dick, but if that’s gibberish then you might want to strengthen some of the foundational understandings around systems.
I'm familiar with chaos theory, and not rejecting issues related to chaotic systems. But this part doesn't really seem well formed:
> It means "5 * the thermal mass of the earth's biosphere" worth of extra energy
Here it seems that the units were missing, at best. The extra energy would be "5K * the heat capacity of the biosphere (in J/K)"
> in an extremely chaotic system that is currently in a local stable point, but doesn't have to stay there.
First of all, I don't think the current state is THAT stable. And when it comes to any disturbance to the stability caused by the extra energy, that's what we have climate scientists for. Specifically, those are the ones that need to assign specific probabilities to the varous scenarios available.
For instance, while it is POSSIBLE that a result of the chaotic dynamics of the system would be that the Gulf Stream got reversed, it seems that the curren consensus is that this is highly unlikely.
However, there are a lot of other effects that would be highly likely, such as an increased rate of hurricanes for instance. But hurricanes is not a state of the whole system, it's basically just a type of weather that gets more common.
So, maybe "gibberish" was not the perfect word to describe it, as I was able to parse it. It's just that it didn't say anything specific. It was more at the level "It's getting chaotic, and chaos is scary", without making any specific predictions or producing references.
> failing to move away from the cost in the next 100 years
Unless you're a time-traveler from the 50s who has somehow managed to post here, there is no excuse for this type of disinformation these days.
Mentioning higher sea levels is also a red herring; massive agricultural yields collapse will be an issue long before (like, this century) sea levels become a major problem.
More than this, we have now reached levels of atmospheric changes that put actual near-term Human extinction (not to mention that of most sea and land species) on the table.
Despite the IPCC being very conservative/optimistic in their scenarios, this is in fact in line with their reports; admittedly my comment above might be badly worded - when I said "near-term", I meant "in the upcoming two centuries or so".
The IPCC reports say we might reach 4C, 5C or even more; based on the historical record, such a major change in such a short time - several orders of magnitude faster than previous CO2e-gases-linked mass extinction events - likely cannot be adapted to by the majority of species (there will of course also be a few evolutionary winners), resulting in potential extinction. I also quote the latest draft report from that same IPCC, leaked about two years back by concerned involved scientists to newspapers before the usual step where political stakeholders are allowed to reword the parts they deem too disturbing or against their interests:
"Life on Earth can recover from a drastic climate shift by evolving into new species and creating new ecosystems," it says. "Humans cannot."
The IPCC also consistently underestimated sulphur in the atmosphere because if you look at this and previous years we've reached their 2030-2035 goal of warming this year.
> GHG emissions will lead to increasing global warming in the near term, and it’s likely this will reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2035.
> Global temperatures have been exceptionally high over the past three months – at around 1.6C above pre-industrial levels – following the peak of current El Niño event at the start of 2024.
> The past 10 months have all set new all-time monthly temperature records, though the margin by which new records have been set has fallen from around 0.3C last year to 0.1C over the first three months of 2024.
You can't grow food for a large population when average planetary temps are at +5C. It doesn't mean it's locally always +5C warmer than it used to be; it means you're seeing insane temperature swings in a matter of days, constantly - in both directions, it just so happens that the average is +5C.
Not to mention, at +5C it is all but certain shallow methane hydrate deposits (those stabilized by temperature, not pressure) all over the world are now outgassing CH4; not to mention several other similar tripwires, and likely not all of which we've even identified.
Edit: I can't seem to be able to reply to your comment below, not sure why. You're absolutely wrong about those Siberia figures, and they're not supported by current scientific consensus.
Much of the soil in Russia that will warm is indeed acidic and largely inexploitable, which I suspect is what you were getting at; to their credit though, they picked an area that isn't (IIRC). Not that it changes much.
Most soil can be used for some type of farming with some help from fertilizers. Temperature and access to water is more critical. Higher CO2 also increases crops, in isolation.
We're also talking about a time span of 100-300 years. Keep in mind how much more efficient farming is now compared to even the 1950's.
Here's another source using data from the "EM-DAT International Disaster Database"[0]. Excerpt from the article[1]:
> As we see, over the course of the 20th century there was a significant decline in global deaths from natural disasters. In the early 1900s, the annual average was often in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 deaths. In the second half of the century and into the early 2000s, we have seen a significant decline to less than 100,000 – at least five times lower than these peaks. This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population – showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) – then we see a more than 10-fold decline over the past century.
Well, for starters, the graph lopped off the first twenty years from the data set so that it could "start" from the massive peak in the 20s and 1930. The top reply to your original tweet is a retweet of two videos that rebut the graph.[0]
It's further skewed by the use of decadal averages, which hid the fact that the greatest peaks included deaths that were either the direct result of--or greatly worsened by, conflict and/or a handful of specific policy decisions--food production failures during and conflicts such as the Zhili-Anhui War in 1920-21[1], floods that occurred during the Chinese civil war which dramatically worsened responses and recovery, the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1932-33 and the Soviet famine of 1930-33 more broadly, the 1938 Yellow River Flood[2] following the intentional destruction of dikes in an attempt to slow the Japanese Army's advance, World War 2 more broadly in the 40s where you had both the food production interruptions of war on a massive scale and explicit acts of mass starvation, the Great Chinese Famine in 1959-61 which is considered to be one of the largest man-made disaster in history,[3] etc.
The graph falsely suggests that we've we've somehow stumbled upon a viable adaptation strategy that makes climate change nothing to worry about. Since 1900, we've seen massive medical advancements, improved early warning systems for at least some types of disasters, transportation networks and technology that helps move people away from disaster zones both before some disasters and in their aftermath, the ability to rapidly move large amounts of food to disaster areas, and more.
Those are all great achievements, but the largest factor in the decline your chart suggests (albeit through data misrepresentation) is the fact that we don't have massive conflicts on the scale we saw in the first half of the 20th century, genocidal dictators looking to quickly wipe out millions of people through starvation, or political ideology driving inane agricultural policies that killed tens of millions of people because the autocratic dictators of some of the most populous nations on Earth read some pseudoscientific drivel (Lysenko and others managed to inspire not only the Soviet Famine in the 30s but also the Great Chinese Famine in the late 50s) and decided it sounded pretty ideologically reliable. We still have conflict and famine, but nothing on the same scale.
Trying to take that and spin it as climate adaptation is, well, absurd. Even by climate skeptic standards, that argument's a real stinker.
No matter how you want to spin it, there are relatively few climate related deaths today compared to the past. Climate change is not causing a rise in climate related deaths, which is what OP was essentially claiming.
Fundamentally just because the current value is at a low point doesn't make something not a threat.
The easy way to think about it by handwaving half-lives of an element. You start with 100 and end up with 50 for a 50% survival rate but also a raw loss of 50. Each of those remaining 50 still are going to have a 50% survival rate despite that the next raw loss is ~25.
But yeah; you can challenge the source of the argument as invalid as opposed to just challenging the argument as invalid.
Religion maybe, and Wikipedia is indeed pretty awesome for many topics, but politics is THE bad example here.
Much of the political - especially geopolitical - content on Wikipedia has a tremendous atlanticist bias.
reply