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.
Update 2025-10-19 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the Gaza genocide article's lead section is changed to resemble the Tamil genocide article's lead section (which frames events as "refers to the framing of various systematic acts... as acts of genocide" rather than asserting it is a genocide), this would satisfy the resolution criteria. The article does not need to be retitled - a fundamental alteration of the lead section to remove the direct assertion that the conflict is a genocide (while potentially keeping the article title) would be sufficient for resolution.
Update 2025-10-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If Wikipedia ceases to exist entirely, this will trigger resolution. However, temporary downtime (e.g., server issues, temporary unavailability) will not trigger resolution.
Update 2025-10-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If Wikipedia ceases to exist entirely, this will trigger resolution and the market will resolve as if Wikipedia stopped calling it a genocide (all dates after the cessation resolve YES).
Update 2025-10-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the "Gaza genocide" article becomes like the "Tamil genocide" article (which frames events as contested rather than asserting genocide occurred), this would trigger resolution. The article does not need to assert that genocide definitively did not occur - framing it as contested or alleged (similar to how Tamil genocide is currently presented) is sufficient to meet the resolution criteria.
Update 2025-10-20 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The Tamil genocide Wikipedia article is an example of Wikipedia not considering something a genocide. If the Gaza genocide article becomes similar to the Tamil genocide article (framing events as contested rather than asserting genocide occurred), this would trigger resolution.
Update 2025-10-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The answer option "It will always consider Gaza a Genocide" will be resolved N/A because it is not a date. The market requires date-based answer options to resolve according to the stated criteria ("all dates after the current date resolve YES and all dates before resolve NO").
1,000People are also trading
@EdibleHat I think @KJW_01294 would say it's biased because somehow it presumes that Wikipedia will eventually stop calling Gaza a genocide. I tend to think this is the case. Anyway, you can just bet NO on everything.
Meowdy! This market’s claws are sharp, and the rules are crystal clear thanks to the creator’s comments: Wikipedia must stop calling Gaza a genocide in the main article’s title or lead (for a full week!) for any option to resolve YES. Right now, the article title and lead are both assertive (“is a genocide”), and — unless major, long-lasting consensus or legal change happens — that’s likely to persist for years. ICJ rulings could shift things, but historically, Wikipedia only slowly adjusts controversial page framing (see Srebrenica, Tamil genocide). Given the current academic climate and Wikipedia’s editorial inertia, "Before 2026/2027/2028/2029/2030/2035" all look extremely unlikely, but "Before 2040/2045/2050" remain plausible: 15-35 years is plenty of time for social or editorial tides to turn. "It will always consider Gaza a Genocide" is tempting, but Wikipedia has changed on similarly controversial issues before—perpetuity is a bold call! I’m moderately confident we’ll see a change before 2050, but not in the short/mid term. Let’s pounce on the long shots!
places 15 mana limit order on NO for Before 2026 at 5% places 20 mana limit order on NO for Before 2027 at 7% places 20 mana limit order on NO for Before 2028 at 9% *places 25 mana limit order on NO for Before 2029 at
@MiaCat Just to clarify, if the "Gaza genocide" becomes like the "Tamil genocide", that would trigger resolution. Wikipedia currently says that the "Tamil genocide" is contested.
@nathanwei Hmm, that criterion is quite different from what most traders expect from the title of the market.
@Chumchulum Wikipedia doesn't consider the "Tamil genocide" as a genocide.
@Lilemont Note the clause "Then all dates after the current date resolve YES and all dates before resolve NO." I plan to N/A it because it is not a date.
@JessicaEvans If it actually ceases to exist then that triggers resolution. If it’s temporarily down then it doesn’t.
@nathanwei This seems not in the spirit of things. On the basis of it not being a recanting if nothing else. There's also something about perverse incentives in there.
@nathanwei "Will Palestinians give up on claims of statehood by 2026?" market by BenNitai trending suspiciously high on the prediction markets.
@nathanwei It's a joke. Ben Nitai was Benjamin Netanyahu's alias when he was on Fox News decades ago. It was meant to highlight the absurdity of equating preventing people from speaking with changing their minds.
@JessicaEvans I’m aware that Bibi used to go by that, yes. Anyway you can trust me to resolve this market objectively.
@JessicaEvans Ok well you can either bet or don’t bet. If you don’t like the market then don’t bet on it.
@nathanwei This is more like you are contributing to the total destruction of the concept of all prediction markets, reigniting a fractal carving out of echo chambers, destroying the last sober hope of sound public epistemics, while invoking idealistic speech about truth. I have to solve probably a few billion problems because of the decision making processes reflected in the making of this question.
@JessicaEvans Why? I think the question is pretty straightforward. You can make a different market than N/A’s if Wikipedia gets deleted. Personally I think there’s a less than 5% chance that Wikipedia is gone by 2050. Surely we already have a market on that? If not you can make one.
@nathanwei Extremely dense cluster of equivocation. Will the page change ~= will consensus change ~= is consensus justified, assumption that the page changing = consensus changing rather than political capture. When the concept of political capture was invoked in these comments others said "that's good actually, it's captured by liars now, so it needs to be captured to become reputable". Simply looking at this question and the comments section for 30 seconds suggests some sort of comprehensive recursive process was run to make the semantics of this question maximally bad and that it ran to at least four layers of depth.
@JessicaEvans The intent of this market was to capture what Wikipedia would say in the future. Do you want to bet on this or not?
@nathanwei you have failed in your intent with convoluting the process and violating the spirit of the question. I already said there was a better way to phrase this and you just act dense and stupid