Resolution Criteria
This market will resolve when Wikipedia stops identifying Gaza as a genocide for a 168 hour period. Then all dates after the current date resolve YES and all dates before resolve NO.
Specifically, the market will resolve if:
The English Wikipedia article currently titled "Gaza genocide" is either deleted, renamed to a title that does not include "genocide" (e.g., "Gaza conflict," "Israel-Hamas war allegations," or similar without the term "genocide" directly asserting it), or its lead section (the first paragraph) is fundamentally altered to remove the assertion that the conflict is a genocide.
This needs to hold for a week. A quick reversion won't count.
The primary source for resolution will be the English Wikipedia, specifically the "Gaza genocide" article (or its successor) and the "List of genocides" article. A link to the article can be found at:
If English Wikipedia is deleted then this will trigger resolution.
Background
Wikipedia currently hosts a dedicated English article titled "Gaza genocide," which defines the conflict as "the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war". This title was adopted following a community vote among Wikipedia contributors, replacing an earlier title that included "allegations of genocide." The decision was based on a perceived consensus among scholars and human rights organizations, according to editor discussions. Additionally, the "Gaza genocide" is listed on Wikipedia's "List of genocides" page.
Considerations
Wikipedia's content, especially on highly controversial and ongoing events, is subject to continuous review and debate by its global volunteer editor community. Changes to article titles, content, or the inclusion in lists such as "List of genocides" typically reflect a consensus reached through Wikipedia's internal editorial processes, which can be dynamic and influenced by evolving external discourse and available sourcing. Different language versions of Wikipedia may also present varying narratives and classifications for the same event, reflecting independent editing communities and diverse source availability.
Wikipedia currently cites an academic consensus that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The ICJ has not reached yet a final verdict, but as of writing according to Manifold there is about a 20% chance that it will determine Israel committed genocide.
I WILL NOT BET IN THIS MARKET!
Thanks to the AI for helping to create this. Anyone is welcome to add new answers. See https://manifold.markets/nathanwei/by-when-will-wikipedia-stop-conside for a market that also requires the war to removed from the "list of genocides".
Update 2025-10-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For each date option, the market will check by that date if Wikipedia has stopped saying the Gaza War is a genocide. If Wikipedia has stopped calling it a genocide by that date, the market resolves NO for that date option.
Update 2025-10-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Important clarification on timing: The market checks if Wikipedia has stopped calling it a genocide BY each date option, not ON that date. If Wikipedia stops calling it a genocide before a date option (even if they later start calling it a genocide again), that date option will resolve YES.
Update 2025-10-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The required period for Wikipedia to stop identifying Gaza as a genocide has been changed from 24 hours to 168 hours (one week). The article must be deleted, renamed without "genocide," or have its lead section fundamentally altered to remove the genocide assertion, and this change must hold for a full week before the market resolves.
Update 2025-10-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Temporary Wikipedia downtime (e.g., due to a Carrington event or server issues) will not trigger resolution. The market requires the Wikipedia article itself to be deleted, renamed, or fundamentally altered - not merely temporarily inaccessible.
1,000People are also trading
This is a really dumb market. You should set a single date (after Icj case resolves) and then have a simple yes/no from there. This is predicated on your flawed and incorrect belief that Wikipedia is currently wrong, and bound to change at some point. The only thing that may change this in my estimate is icj, but I’m not going to wait 25 years for a payout here
PS stop thanking ai it makes you look incapable
@nathanwei the words “by when” imply a forgone conclusion, or an eventuality. Even if its objective, this is absolutely also predicated on your personal and flawed belief.
@Magnify Feel free to bet NO. And yes, I believe that if the ICJ rules no genocide (which manifold says is ~80% likely) then at some point this will stop being an academic consensus and Wikipedia changes accordingly. "Before 2050" is at 71% here as of me writing this.
You can also add more options. You can add a "not by 2050" option or a "not by 2100".
@nathanwei gee I just put 30 down and now it’s at 20%. If you think ICJ will change the result, why not anchor off that date? Why put this absurd 2050 option?
@nathanwei wow you’ve managed to tell me what my own decision was, congrats.
You should also recognize that voting yes on something 25 years out includes a lot of contingencies. If we have a carrington event for example, this would resolve yes. That has nothing to do with politics, or genocide, or Wikipedia even, but would fit the bill of this dumb market that you thanked ai for.
@Magnify If Wikipedia is temporarily down because of a Carrington event, that will not trigger resolution. The wikipedia article will still be there but stored on some server.
@nathanwei unless they’re fried, best case you could offer NA.
Here’s a better market title, without the use of AI. “After the ICJ issues its judgement, will Wikipedia stop considering gaza a genocide?”. Flexible close date accounting for contingencies, no predication, clean yes/no resolution. Can always re resolve if that comes up, but truly do you expect it to stand for 10-15 years then be rewritten? And if that happens do you truly think traders here would accept that for the purposes of academic consideration? I’d sooner believe Wikipedia had been compromised to a point of fundamental destruction rendering this moot.
It’s also worth recognizing on your end that ICJ has an incredibly high legal bar which academics do not agree with from a practical/truth based standpoint. Your inability to recognize the reason why one does not connect to the other is your issue here.
Another thing for the record, I train AI for work, and it’s utter dogshit. It is utterly devoid of anything beyond word prediction. I’ve found that people who have begun to rely on it and be proud/grateful of that fact are losing critical thinking before my eyes.
@xjp No, but this is definitely the first time that Wikipedia has cited a consensus of mainstream scholarship with a pending ICJ trial that is expected by Manifold to resolve negatively. Personally I have a have hard time seeing how the academic consensus won't change if the ICJ rules that there was no genocide. In the Serbia case, they at least ruled that the Srebenica was a genocidal massacre and an act of genocide. Here Manifold expects the ICJ to rule no genocide.
I hate that you make us decode your meaning from the ai slop instead of just writing your question, which you had to do to prompt the ai anyway.
Asking again, because a) you realized the previous market was different from what you wanted and b) this market description is not worth my reading comprehension:
You think that wikipedia may decide in the future that the events of the Israel Palestine war do not constitutea genocide. This market resolves to when that happens. Is that correct?
@MaxE yeah, for each date, we check by that date if Wikipedia has stopped saying the Gaza War is a genocide, and resolve NO if it has
@nathanwei so if they stop saying it before the date but start again later, and then you check on the given date and see they are calling it a genocide, that date would resolve no?
@MaxE No, it resolve as YES in that case. We check BY that date, not ON that date. I think this edge case is very unlikely in any case.