Any number of these conflicts might resolve Yes this year, once they enter the Wars or Major Wars category on Wikipedia's List of Ongoing Armed Conflicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
I will be fairly liberal with what counts as a conflict. So if the U.S. and Israel declare war on Iran and start accruing losses in one Wikipedia entry, both of those pairings could resolve Yes together. Multiple belligerents fighting as part of a broader conflict with a different Wiki heading still count as long as their (para)militaries are actually fighting each other. So, the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2024 did count for Israel/Lebanon but did not count for Israel/Iran. "Anyone" conflicts can resolve to any conflict involving the listed country. At the end of the year, all unresolved conflicts will resolve No.
A conflict will only resolve N/A if the definition of the countries involved becomes broadly disputed in a high traffic trading event with no reasonable solution after asking mods. One guy misreading the wikipedia rules won't result in an N/A, but 12 people arguing about a 5-way civil war with publicly denied international intervention might. If a wiki entry is added to the Wars or major Wars category merely because of a retroactive addendum to its 2024 numbers, that will not be sufficient to resolve it Yes for 2025. Coterminous states such as Rojava count for their synonyms (in this case, Kurdistan).
Update 2025-02-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification on Kurdish-related conflicts:
The market will use the bundled Kurdish Separatist Insurgencies Wikipedia article as the basis for resolution on Kurdistan / Anyone.
In particular, conflicts such as those involving Kurds in the Syrian Civil War will not count unless they show sufficient deadly involvement in the last 13 months, similar to how the Arab-Israeli Conflict entry is treated.
These conditions apply both for this year and last year, though they could change if the situation escalates.
Update 2025-02-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For the Nigeria / Cameroon conflict:
A resolution of Yes will be given if Wikipedia continues to list both countries as belligerents.
The conflict must be in active fighting at the time of evaluation.
Update 2025-06-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In a comment referencing the resolution of an older market, the creator provided their reasoning for resolving an Israel/Iran conflict as Yes. This indicates a similar standard may be applied to this market. Key factors included:
The conflict becoming a "hot war" with strikes that are "much more deadly and sustained" than previous exchanges.
Iran being "actively joined, unambiguously and directly (not just through proxies)".
This judgment was supported by major media headlines.
Update 2025-11-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Balochistan (and similar non-internationally recognized entities): The conflict can resolve Yes if Balochistan is listed as a belligerent in Wikipedia's format in the relevant conflict entry. International recognition as a country is not required.
Update 2025-11-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Balochistan (and similar non-internationally recognized entities): The conflict can resolve Yes if it reaches 1000 deaths and becomes classified as a minor war on Wikipedia's List of Ongoing Armed Conflicts, provided Balochistan is listed as a belligerent in the conflict entry.
Update 2025-11-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Balochistan (and similar conflicts): The market will resolve Yes if the Wikipedia entry shows updated death counts that reach the threshold for classification as a war/minor war by end of year, provided the entry includes Balochistan as a belligerent and meets Wikipedia's standards for the Wars or Minor Wars category.
Update 2025-12-04 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has confirmed that no changes will be made to the existing resolution criteria for this market, despite any concerns raised about their application. All previously issued clarifications (including those regarding Balochistan) remain in effect.
Update 2025-12-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For Balochistan (and similar sub-belligerent conflicts): The market can resolve Yes if there is ongoing direct conflict with the sub-belligerent entity (such as regular separatist bombings, hijackings, etc. in the region), following the same approach used for the Israel/Lebanon resolution. The requirement is that there must be some ongoing direct conflict activity, not necessarily full classification as a "minor war" on Wikipedia.
Update 2025-12-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): All unresolved conflicts will resolve No immediately on January 1st, 2026 (when the market closes). There will be no waiting period for additional information or data to come in after the close date.
1,000
1.00I've started personally blocking the spammers. I recommend folks stop giving them data and just wait for the Manifold staff/mods to take action.
Welcome to so many new Manifold accounts created last week! Especially warmer welcome to any real human who may be part of this cohort.
As you are new, let me clarify how Manifold markets resolution work:
Market creators will never resolve based on the amount of text supporting a given argument. Even if the ratio is 1.000 to 1, resolution will be based on resolution criteria. You can save your AI tokens for more profitable purposes.
Market creators will never resolve based on the number of different traders placing comments and bets. There is no need to create 10 alternative accounts on the same date to repeat the same message, as this will not influence resolution.
Market creators will not change the resolution criteria after 11 months of dozens of traders betting on the original criteria. You are free to create new markets with different criteria.
Manifold markets are resolved by market creators, based on the market resolution criteria.
Alert for all traders: use your own judgment before placing any bet following a new trend. Do not complain if any resolution does not match an apparent consensus in the comments section.
Resolution criteria since day 1:
“Anyone" conflicts can resolve to any conflict involving the listed country
Then repeated many times by market creator in endless clarifications.
So, no matter how broad the army of new accounts trying to change the resolution criteria would be, it will not change
@MiguelLM Balochistan is a province of Pakistan. Again.
@MiguelLM Balochistan is a province of Pakistan, not the whole country, and it’s important not to treat “Balochistan” and “Pakistan” as the same thing.
Its not fair to lump together incidents from across Pakistan and then present them as if they all happened in Balochistan, which several people have flagged as shenanigans act.
The conflict there is very real and people have suffered, but the number of combat-related deaths in Balochistan itself is still under 1,000. By this question's and Wikipedia definitions, that keeps it below the technical threshold of a “war,” even if it feels like one for many who heard false news about separatists war in Balochistan.
Balochistan solely may count to third of conflicts in Pakistan. Actually counting all of the Pakistanian conflicts as if they are solely happening in Balochistan is a shenanigans attempt. And that approach had already Being disputed. Most of users voted against that fraudulent ir misleading approach: https://manifold.markets/PATRICI/is-balochistan-currently-experienci
@RenaoJedi you guys
1. created multiple alt accounts
spammed this market
created a new market with a missleading title that is not applicable to the resolution criteria of this market
voted with the alt accounts in the new market
and now pretend that this second market has any value
The mods are having a look to many markets that have been vandalized. In the meanwhile, the rest of us have to figure out how to keep trading in the middle of the noise
@MiguelLM most of manifold users agree that Balochistan isn't a country.
Also Balochistan isn't equal to the whole country of Pakistan.
You can't swim against the truth
@RenaoJedi we all agree that it is not a country. But we also agree that "International recognition as a country is not required." is part of the resolution criteria.
@MiguelLM Balochistan is a Province, it's not in fight with anyone.
There are ISIS and other groups in mountains. ISIS isn't recognized as a state
@RenaoJedi
Baluchistan expands into three countries, and all are in conflict. One major insurgency in Pakistan, a lower-intensity insurgency in Iran, and a spillover/fragment conflict zone in southern Afghanistan.
Smaller conflicts can be grouped together as part of broader conflicts. One can argue for Baluchistan insurgency in Pakistan that:
… it belongs to a looser transnational “Baloch conflict system” that spans three states
… it doesn’t have any relation to any other conflict
… it fits best inside a Pakistan internal ethno-nationalist insurgency
While the debate is interesting and all options can be argued for, as we have agreed to vote on the Wikipedia conflicts entry, it is not up to us to decide how to group the fatalities, but we simply rely on the Wikipedia entry.
Wikipedia grouping is the combination of 1 and 3. We have all being bet on this conflict entry, as reflected in the odds of this entry for 11 months, growing together with the reported fatalities until >90% odds of YES, until the network of bots and alt. accounts vandalized this market.
Please note the resolution description:
Multiple belligerents fighting as part of a broader conflict with a different Wiki heading still count
And
resolve Yes if Balochistan is listed as a belligerent
I don't read anywhere that Balochistan must be the only beligerent in the conflict entry.
@MiguelLM Balochistan is not a side of (not belligerent) for thise conflicts.
Pakistan is fighting there, not the province of Balochistan.
@MiguelLM the 11-months final number for those deaths in Balochistan - well bellow 1000, required by the conditions for this question: https://crss.pk/first-11-months-of-2025-over-25-more-violent-than-entire-2024/
that what guys had found so far in relation to Baloch.conflict: The Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) typically releases its comprehensive Annual Security Report in the first week of the new year.
Expected Release Date: January 3–7, 2026.
Note: They often release a press release summary (like the one you saw) a few days before the full PDF.
Where to Check:
Official Reports Page: https://crss.pk/security-reports/ (Look for "Annual Security Report 2025")
\\ https://crss.pk/first-11-months-of-2025-over-25-more-violent-than-entire-2024/ KP was the worst-hit region, suffering nearly 68% (2165) of the total violence-linked fatalities, and over 62% (732) of the incidents of violence, followed by Balochistan, accounting for over 28% of the total fatalities (896) and over 30% of the incidents (366) of violence.
@MyDreamIsHere2018 it is winter now there, in mountains. Too cold to fight, expectations are about 976 fatalities for 2025 in Balochistan
@Panfilo do these instantly resolve no on Jan 1st if they aren't resolved yes? Or will there be a waiting period for more info to come in?
@Kfredric Market is to be closed on 1 January and resolution is. But there is a dispute.
It seems the biggest holder hasnot come at the time to realise that his expectetions were wrong, and now they’re trying to change the initial rules that were set for the Wiki classification.
It almost feels like they’re trying to make us believe that Balochistan is at war with someone. The thing is, on referenced Wikipedia list, the special separate subcategory for Balochistan hasn't even appeared yet.
Now the author seems intent on renaming Pakistan as Balochistan, which is a whole other issue.
I honestly reckon this is going to stir up a dispute in the market. If it’s resolved wrongly (claiming "yes" to it) things could get messy with mods, leading to being unresolved. The creator might end up with a heap of negative ratings also and shame reputation could be sticking forever, branded as a scammer (making up the false resolutions to win MANA).
The truth is, there’s no "Free State of Balochistan," and the conflicts in the region just don’t meet the criteria for a Wikipedia classification as a war.
@Kfredric Because of the clause "At the end of the year, all unresolved conflicts will resolve No." I will have to do it immediately on January 1st as you say. Next year's market will allow an extra month for more data to be added from the backlogue.
@Panfilo sorry I think i just didn't see that clause. Im just a bit confused why some are so high with such a short time period left. The only one that seems too low to me is Balochistan.
Chur @Panfilo, thanks for the clarity. Good update.
So the conflict in Balochistan hasn't actually blown up 3 times into a proper war. Expected result: no war there yet. Sweet as.
The USSR/Iran used to back the BLA to fight the USA' allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but with the Soviets gone, the BLA can't sustain any significant control and agreed to surrender 10 years ago.
And all that media buzz /mostly Indian/ advertising that the province was gonna declare independence? Never materialized.
No any airstrikes in Balochistan, no open war of Israel scale.
@Kfredric It's because someone is making a million alts thinking they can cause a NO resolution on Balochistan by force of will