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").
Update 2025-10-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The answer option "It will always consider Gaza a Genocide" has been resolved N/A because it is not a date. The market requires date-based answer options to resolve according to the stated criteria.
Update 2025-10-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The "Tamil genocide" article is an example of how Wikipedia frames contested events. The Tamil genocide article uses language like "refers to the framing of..." rather than asserting genocide occurred. If the Gaza genocide article adopts similar framing language (referring to "the framing" of events as genocide rather than asserting it is a genocide), this would satisfy the resolution criteria even if the article title remains "Gaza genocide."
Update 2025-10-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If Wikipedia ceases to exist and is later revived and then edited, this could affect resolution. The market does not automatically resolve based on Wikipedia's permanent cessation - it's possible for Wikipedia to be revived later and then edited, which would be considered for resolution purposes.
Update 2025-10-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarified that there are two separate markets with different resolution criteria:
This market resolves YES if the Gaza genocide article's lead section stops asserting genocide in encyclopedic voice (similar to how Tamil genocide article uses "refers to the framing of" language), OR if the article is deleted/renamed without "genocide"
The other market (https://manifold.markets/nathanwei/by-when-will-wikipedia-stop-conside) has stricter criteria and would NOT resolve for a Tamil genocide-style framing
The creator offered to create a third market specifically about retitling the page only, indicating this current market's criteria are broader than just a title change.
1,000
1.00why did “always” get N/A’d?
this whole market has icky manufactured consent vibes.
@fluttershy Because it's not a date. I explicitly wrote that non-dates would get N/A'd. In any case, that's not something that could ever resolve YES, only as NO. Do you want me to open it again?
If someone wrote "before Trump's presidency ends" I would also N/A it. "Before January 20, 2029" would be acceptable though.
@Magnify That's true. But later I decided to add it and N/A. If you really want I can keep it open. But this is something that would end up being valued at 1% in an efficient market, because it can literally NEVER resolve yes and ONLY resolve no. So I didn't want to keep it as an option. You can make a "by January 1, 3000" option if you want.
@nathanwei honestly my only request here is that you take your prescribed medication and go for a quick walk. this whole deal is really weird.
@nathanwei your assumption that it would remain at 1% is proof of your bias. An efficient market would have it at EITHER 1% or 99%. While it can’t resolve yes, it can remain true for as long as your account is active and bring in value via loans. Judging by its % when you resolved it, it was trending that direction.
@nathanwei surely you recognize that anything past 2120 is effectively “always”.
Besides, if Wikipedia ever announces end of edits in any way, but remains viewable, that would resolve “always” as YES.
@Magnify No, because it's possible that Wikipedia could get revived much later and then edited or something. Just put a "before 2300" option.
@nathanwei you could easily say that rebranding of Wikipedia resolves always as yes then. The problem is this stupid ass market is full of ambiguity and interpretation. This is obscenely subjective and it can be argued solidly both ways.
We generally call those shitty markets.
@Magnify I think the resolution criteria are pretty clear. If you want I can make another market about whether the title of the article will change its name from "Gaza genocide".
@nathanwei your thoughts are bad, judge by these comments, the number of revisions, and the number of edits it’s obvious this is the case.
I’d put forward (again) that your thoughts suck because you rely on AI so much, but that’s something for you to consider.
@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.
@nathanwei Except for the Sri Lankan government rejecting the claim, what part of the article makes you think it’s ‘contested.’ There’s a whole section on the recognition of the genocide that makes it sound like it’s anything but. Surely if Wikipedia says Israel disputes claims of genocide this doesn’t mean it considers it contested. Otherwise there would be no such thing as genocide according to Wikipedia. The accused rarely go around saying, ‘Yup, we did a genocide.’
@MachiNi Wikipedia says that "Tamil genocide" refers to the framing of events as a genocide. It does not say in encyclopedic voice that the Tamil genocide is a genocide. I have this other market https://manifold.markets/nathanwei/by-when-will-wikipedia-stop-conside which wouldn't resolve YES for the Tamil genocide.
I can make a third market just about retitling the page if you want.
@MachiNi There's also this market https://manifold.markets/BrunoJ/gaza-genocide-still-labeled-as-geno
@nathanwei since the Tamil genocide is on the Wikipedia list of genocides it seems very odd based on one word to say it’s not a genocide according to Wikipedia. You’re splitting hairs to facilitate the resolution you want.
@MachiNi Do you want another market just based on the title? Look the beauty of this website is that you are able to make another version of this market. I can make another version based on changing the title of the article.
@nathanwei stop responding that to anyone objecting to your handling of this market.
@MachiNi Here is a new market by the way: https://manifold.markets/nathanwei/by-when-will-the-wikipedia-page-gaz