To qualify, the crisis should be listed here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis
If Wikipedia becomes unreliable, defunct, or does not list a crisis but there's a broad consensus that there has been one, then I'm open to resolving according to a different source.
Update 2025-02-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Broad Consensus Clarification
If Wikipedia lists a constitutional crisis but there is a broad consensus that it has not occurred, the resolution may be based on a different, less biased source.
A broad consensus requires more than strong disagreement (for example, stark differences between left and right perspectives); in such a case, Wikipedia remains the guiding source.
Ongoing events mentioned on Wikipedia do not yet qualify as a full-fledged constitutional crisis.
1,000Not even Democrat senators think there is a constitutional crisis..
Fetterman says there 'isn't a constitutional crisis' with the Trump administration
@skibidist It's so embarrassing for the United States that this is even a discussion.
Israel had months of mass protests due to a far-right government rapidly pushing judicial reforms that threatened do disturb the balance of power between the governmental branches. And even here the left-leaning media was responsible enough to correctly report that a constitutional crisis might happen if things play out a certain way.
This hystericization of everything ('project 2025'/'trans genocide'/'end of democracy'/'everything is fascism') by what should be respectable newspapers needs to stop.
A wise comment from the Wikipedia article's discussion page:
There is a long history of events being added to this article based on speculations (against WP:CRYSTAL) and the political passions of a moment, and that is why it is preferred that entries be sourced to publications that discuss an episode after the fact and at length not as a "potential crisis" or "looming crisis" etc. but an actual crisis. The NYT article, viewed by that standard, has one scholar (Chemerinsky) clearly saying that a CC is underway, and others whom the reporter attributes but do not directly quote on the point, and none of them quoted at length. This is a familiar pattern, and events will unfold as they do regardless of what this article says, and there is no urgency to declare a CC in the face of ongoing debate.
I urge everyone to calm down and wait to see how the events develop.
Absolutely insane valuation, but the market is to be resolved based on a rather radical leftist site and I don't know anything about the creator, so not sure if I can put in more mana.
@Ansel Where do you stand in all of this? If a crisis is added to the page, but it is disputed, how do you plan to resolve? Do you have an account on BlueSky? When was your last COVID booster?
@Ansel Crucially, what do you mean by this?
> there's a broad consensus that there has been one
I already see some people have worked themselves into a frenzied consensus on this.
@skibidist Wikipedia is not a radical leftist site. It appears to have only a slight leftist bias
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-there-political-bias-to-wik-5SSA991XQTajE0scfIojmg
@Siebe When even a woke* AI admits something has a leftist bias, the bias has to be pretty severe..
* https://chatgpt.com/share/67aa92b1-e224-800d-a4ff-604df400280f
@skibidist The text of the market refers to Wikipedia, with the assumption that Wikipedia is a trusted and unbiased source that is easy to verify and unlikely to equivocate. That said, the spirit of the market is very much that there should be a broad consensus that there has been an actual constitutional crisis.
Phrases like radical left and radical right are often used by those very same groups to describe the American centre, as a rhetorical tactic. For example many Europeans describe the US as a far-right country (I don’t agree). If you can make a persuasive argument there’s a better source that would be less biased than Wikipedia, I’ll consider it. But many traders have already participated with the current text, and changing it without good reason would be unfair to them. So for now, assume the resolution criteria will not change, reframe it as a radical left or radical right market in your own mind as you see fit.
@skibidist broad consensus is hard to measure in the absence of an easily observable public metric like Wikipedia. Although I should have mentioned that if the converse happens, and Wikipedia lists a constitutional crisis but there’s a broad consensus there hasnt been one, then I’m also open to resolving according to a different source in that case.
In the case where left and right strongly disagree that there has been a constitutional crisis, that doesn’t look like a broad consensus to me, and probably in that case I stick with Wikipedia. The currently listed mention of ongoing events does not yet qualify as a full-fledged constitutional crisis.
The currently listed mention of ongoing events does not yet qualify
@Ansel The note was ridiculous and has been removed.
@skibidist A constitutional crisis requires that the populace decide to stand up for the Constitution. Does anyone want to do that?
I would probably lean NO on this one because I believe that what's most likely to happen is that Trump will fire a lot of government employees and cut programs, and most people will recognize that almost nothing has changed except that the budget is 10% smaller because those programs were supposed to be doing something but in reality didn't accomplish real-world effects. See https://x.com/SteveSokolowsk2/status/1888964656813011212.
Others can debate on whether what Trump is doing is constitutional or not. Whether you or I support him or not (and no post I make should be construed to suggest I oppose Trump), I do believe that this way is the only possible way to achieve a shrinkage of the Federal government.
His popularity will likely fall in the short term but I can see support building for him.
@Siebe Wikipedia has serious leftwing bias, for example this page used to called 'Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom' and it's still fighting tooth and nail to minimize the scandal. But I agree that calling it 'radical left' is silly.
See:
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin
@Shai Elon Musk, arguably one of the most grounded public persons, said Wikipedia was "controlled by far-left activists" (by grounded I mean seeing the reality as it is, unaffected by herd mentality that causes most people to just repeat whatever is popular)
