At time of writing, a Google Chrome translation of the Arabic language Wikipedia page on the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital explosion, the title of which translates to the Baptist Hospital massacre, looks like this:
The page clearly attributes the explosion to Israel.
Until end of year, will that page, or a renamed page about the explosion (whichever page appears to be the main article for the explosion on the Arabic wikipedia), continue to attribute the explosion to Israel?
Resolves "No" as soon as the article reasonably unambiguously states the attack was not due to Israel, and I am satisfied this is not vandalism or part of an edit war.
Otherwise, at end of year, resolves "Yes" if the article still attributes the explosion to Israel, or "Ambiguous" if it does not reasonably unambiguously say either way whether Israel was responsible.
I won't bet on this market.
I'll have to use automatic translation to figure out what the article is saying, but am happy to accept assistance if anyone thinks this is unreliable.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ204 | |
| 2 | Ṁ166 | |
| 3 | Ṁ68 | |
| 4 | Ṁ66 | |
| 5 | Ṁ36 |
I like this concept a lot. I made a similar market for the death toll question:
/EvanDaniel/how-many-people-died-in-the-alahli-98d0ef8cbcf6
It's intended to be the mirror of my original death toll question:
/EvanDaniel/how-many-people-died-in-the-alahli
@EvanDaniel honestly I just find this market depressing. how can there be mutual understanding when even the base facts are in contention?
What does the ar.wiki article on Israel look like? That should be a good benchmark of how biased it is over longer periods of time. I'll have to take a look at that at some point.
@connorwilliams97 nothing controvial from my skim.
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A5%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%84