According to Wikipedia. Actually directly categorized as genocide, not just "many people are saying..."
Update 2025-05-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that for an event to be considered 'directly categorized as genocide' on Wikipedia, as per the market description, this includes the relevant Wikipedia article:
Being in a genocide category.
Being included in a list of genocides.
Update 2025-05-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has stated that if an ICJ verdict is strongly anticipated to lead to a change in the Wikipedia article's categorization (specifically, its inclusion in a genocide category or a list of genocides), they may opt to wait for the Wikipedia article to reflect any such changes before resolving the market. The resolution will continue to be based on the Wikipedia categorization as previously defined.
Update 2025-05-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided an additional detail regarding the timing of resolution in a specific scenario:
If the creator opts to wait for the Wikipedia article to reflect anticipated changes (e.g., due to an ICJ verdict), this waiting period will not be indefinite.
1,000People are also trading
@nathanwei if the ruling is anticipated to change the Wikipedia article categorization, then we will wait
@benjaminIkuta I think that kinda goes against the spirit of the question, being otherwise focused on wikipedia's decision. Would a verdict declaring Israel innocent really change what wikipedia would say considering how many sources they are already using. Seems like an unecessary delay to me
@nathanwei is the Wikipedia article considered stable? I suppose I'll resolve YES soon if nobody objects
Resolution of International Association of Genocide Scholars: IAGS Resolution on the Situation in Gaza
@nathanwei This is what they replied:
"The goal of diversity and inclusivity in IAGS’ membership is also reflected in the affordable membership price options, which enable scholars to join who may otherwise be prohibited from joining due to financial constraints. IAGS is proud of offering affordable membership options to ensure diversity of membership."
https://genocidescholars.org/reactions-to-iags-resolution-on-gaza/
@MiguelLimaMedin Yeah I don’t think they’re super important. The ICJ is the real organization we should listen to here.
@nathanwei This question description is a bit weird. Resolution criteria is not very specific.
Apparently we have to check Wikipedia rather than IAGS or ICJ for resolution of this particular question.
We probably should be spending our time in other questions with clearer resolution criteria.
The UN commission concluded Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
I think the resolution is not so clear. There currently exists a Wikipedia article. Does this count?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
@HannesLynchburg No it's definitely still of the form "many people are saying". ICJ is 80% to rule Israel is not committing genocide on Manifold.
@nathanwei The resolution criteria was specifically about Wikipedia. There is an article title ("Gaza genocide") + an Infobox and the page was placed in the category "Genocides in Asia".
It is not clear what should still happen for a yes resolution if that isn't enough.
(I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is unbiased on this topic.)
@HannesLynchburg the article being in the genocide category and in the list of genocides is direct categorization, per the market description. Seems like this should resolve yes
@benjaminIkuta This category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Genocides_in_Asia has stuff like "US war crimes", the Taiping Rebellion, Manchukuo (like the Japanese puppet states), persecution of Christians in North Korea, and the partition of India. These things are not genocides. I feel the market probably should resolve yes given your criteria, but this says more about Wikipedia's reliability than anyone else... if the ICJ verdict comes down that there is no genocide and they change some things, does it re-resolve no?
@nathanwei yeah, it's not ideal, but I made it to be objective, not up to my own judgement of what exactly constitutes genocide. If you really think the verdict will change the article categorization, we could wait and see
@benjaminIkuta Yes, I think it will, I also generally think Wikipedia will be dewokified at some point.
Are you ever going to resolve this?
@benjaminIkuta yes, according to Wikipedia, 🤣
The destruction is not the elimination of a group,
I think you're trying to use word semantics while failing to know the definition of said words.
Typical no child left behind act student
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
Wikipedia defines genocide the same way the international courts do.
This has been resolved and has been declared LEGALLY a geonicde you're being petty and waiting for it to match your feelings as a zionoist
"Not just by many people"
"Directly labeled a genocide"
Which the international courts did.
Like I stated I reported it, it takes 24-48 hours to be looked at and a decision to be made
I can only hope they ban your manipulation markets who use feelings instead of factual law.