By Wikipedia voice, I mean something along the lines of "at Kfar Aza, babies were beheaded" instead of "source X alleges that babies were beheaded" or "it is widely believed that babies were beheaded", or anything other than a forthright, authoritative statement that is not attributed to some person or source.
At a time of my choice on December 31, 2023 I will view the Wikipedia article and resolve YES or NO based on its contents. However, if I observe that the article was edited with the specific intent of manipulating or profiting from this market, I reserve the right to resolve it based on the contents of the article before the edits related to the manipulation. I will take an especially close look at any Wikipedia accounts created after the creation of this market.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ113 | |
| 2 | Ṁ86 | |
| 3 | Ṁ49 | |
| 4 | Ṁ22 | |
| 5 | Ṁ17 |
People are also trading
@nathanwei The youngest person killed in Kfar Azza was 14. This story wasn't even close to being true.
The most convincing evidence is off Wikipedia. because some editor doesn't want it to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kfar_Aza_massacre#Here_you_go._Definitive_confirmation,_undisputable_verification_,_that_the_babies_are_in_fact_decapitated.
Honestly, at some point this just becomes a market on how ridiculous the leftist/anti-Israel bias of Wikipedia is, rather than anything to do with the truth of the matter.
A Wikipedia editor is now openly claiming that reports of beheaded babies could be used as a pretext for some hate crime or some such https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kfar_Aza_massacre#WP:WEASEL_and_facts and so it must be painstakingly verified before being confirmed by Wikipedia. I wonder if they apply the same standard on the other side? No way.
We need Manifold, because even though the media and Wikipedia generally have a left-wing anti-Israel bias, at Manifold we side first and foremost with the truth (which generally has a pro-Israel bias and a pro-market bias).
This looks fairly convincing but unlikely to be enough for Wikipedia to unequivocally state yes.
https://manifold.markets/Haroon/are-the-reports-from-kfar-aza-accur#Zt9rdjJ7XiUfPQemTo3f
@manifoldaccount I don't think citing Wikipedia will do much to get at the ground truth. I think Wikipedia will be ambiguous either way. It's much safer for Wikipedia to be ambiguous on all of these sorts of things, as some editors will react violently to their side being attacked but will be OK with ambiguity.
Adding children turns the statement being asked about from "probably false" to "probably true", but I still think the market will probably resolve as no. It's also just very hard to verify, and you could easily get false positives or false negatives. Eyewitness reports can be wrong (you can imagine eyewitnesses in Kfar Aza were traumatized and had other things), and Hamas could have dragged some of the worst bodies back and destroyed the evidence. The IDF to its great credit is waiting for the evidence. Burned babies are bad enough; that is not any less bad than decapitating babies, if anything being burned seems like a more painful and sadistic way of killing someone than decapitating them. Fuck Hamas.
Wikipedia will probably said that there were reports of this and that it was disputed and we probably will never know the truth. I'm >50% that at least one civilian under 18 were beheaded in Kfar Aza and >50% that at least one Israeli baby was beheaded in the Gaza envelope, but <50% that at least one baby was beheaded in Kfar Aza and <50% on this question to resolve as yes.
It doesn't matter though. The babies burned in Kfar Aza is bad enough. Burned, decapitated, who cares? The Israelis to their great credit did not confirm anything about decapitated babies in Kfar Aza.