I've started personally blocking the spammers. I recommend folks stop giving them data and just wait for the Manifold staff/mods to take action.

@creator, why you start contradicting the 1st rule in your market description?

"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"

Anyone" conflicts can resolve to any conflict involving the listed country. Balochistan maybe either referenced to BLA , or to any conflict in Balochistan. But not to other provinces in Pakistan. Ba;ochistan is like 1/3 of combatant deaths of Pakistan per year, or less

@CancelTheBorders You are actually contradicting yourself, @Panfilo with the latest clarification. It directly conflicts with your own earlier explanation shown here, simply because you are holding on to many YES answers that would turn into NO if you applied your own Wikipedia-based clarification consistently.

The dispute should already be started or market N/A, as the arguments from you, market resolver, are clearly self-contradictory.

I would not buy a single bet if you would tell before that your are changing the rules on a fly to make up the impossibility of NO resolution.

Absence for NO resolution is clearly not honest practice and market shall go N/A. I will give you 5 stars if you just return my MANA with N/A (even if my bets are actually winning - there is no war in Balochistan, but conflicts)

@CancelTheBorders > The creator bought heaps of cheap Balochistan shares and is now trying to rig the market by inventing a “war in Balochistan.”

It looks like they’re passing wishful Indian bloggers videos as reality - relying solely on Indian bloggers, not real facts. It's not the prediction.

And now creator wants go shenanigans to cash out by making up a war that doesn’t even exist and pulling the MANA from us, who simply do not trust those bloggers

Dear @Panfilo , if you're predefining the market resolution based on what you wish it were, you're going completely against your own previous clarification that the matter will be resolved according to Wikipedia's actual standards for distinguishing between conflicts and wars.

If you were so sure about your initial prediction will go full war, why is the market still open if you believe Balochistan is in war? The fact that the market remains unresolved - even after some sources, like ACELD, showed thousands of deaths in Balochistan and you claimed it was a 'war,' not just a 'conflict' shows one of two things:

1. Your prediction of an intensified conflict didn't materialize.

2. You're essentially admitting that by not resolving it in October when the ACELD data exceeded 1,500 Balochistan deaths, you are generally stating that you will stick to the Wikipedia terminology, not the ACLED data - which contradicts your claim that a 'war' is already underway!"

Summary of the Contradiction:

The core self-contradiction highlighted is:

• Claim 1 (Implied): The conflict is a "war" (or minor war) because the death toll is high (e.g., >1500 per ACLED). Not resolved, waiting for Wikipedia updates.

• Claim 2 (Action): The market is not resolved based on the high death toll all over Pakistan (that means market is about Balochistan , not Pakistan as a whole)

To all Balochistan accounts who repeat the same question over and over: there is a time gap between ACELD and Wikipedia

ACLED (filter by Pakistan/Balochistan + Battles):
Sep 26th Year to Date = 939
Oct 4th YTD = 976
Oct 11th YTD = 997

Wikipedia:
Early October = 940
Late October = 965
November = 985

As of today, ACLED is at 1.108

You still have several days or weeks to keep buying NO before the Wikipedia gets updated, but you have to hurry up

@MiguelLM only Balochistan shall count

Data must be pure. In thar agglomeration are all the reports, mostly from various telegram accounts. It makes noise, but doesn't provide the final data that Wikipedia is relying on.

Balochistan conflict isn't war yet.

In Khyber the conflict as many deaths probably as in Balochistan. Same not a war, but local conflict

Creator banned me for providing the information

@MiguelLM External Fact Check (CRSS): ~896 fatalities (Jan–Nov 2025).

• Source: The Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) reported that Balochistan accounted for roughly 28% of the country's total 3,187 fatalities in the first 11 months of 2025, which totals approximately 896 deaths.

@MiguelLM Unverified Claims: ACLED is an "event-based" dataset that logs reports as they come in. If a militant group claims on Telegram "we killed 20 soldiers," and no one denies it or offers a better number, that 20 enter the database. Local newspapers (used by CRSS) might ignore that claim as propaganda.

@1bets

Many thanks for your input. I learnt something I didn’t new, I will have a look to CRSS.

wikipedia will update based on ACELD

Market will resolve as per Wikipedia

I think ACELD retroactively review sometimes these very quick inputs when they turn out to be wrong. I suspect Wikipedians may wait a bit to update, and may not use the last batch, but I don’t know for sure

@1bets

I found the report by Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) with 896 deaths. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find on their site the methods they follow to get to this number, neither their criteria, nor the sources.

ACLED uses the combination and review of four types of sources, as explained in their sourcing FAQ:

-            Traditional Media

-            Reports

-            Local Partner Data

-            New Media (targeted and verified)

For Pakistan, the Local Partner data comes from Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICS), with a PICS-ACLED partnership active since 2001.

I can’t judge whether CRSS or PICS is a better local source. You are to free to use whatever source you find more reliable for your own estimates, and even to create new Manifold markets based on a different criteria

I’m 99% conviced that, by year end:

-            PICS (and not CRSS) will continue to be the Local Partner for ACLED

-            Wikipedians will continue to rely on ACLED

-            This market will resolve based on Wikipedia

@1bets
This sentence by you:

Unverified Claims: ACLED is an "event-based" dataset that logs reports as they come in. If a militant group claims on Telegram "we killed 20 soldiers," and no one denies it or offers a better number, that 20 enter the database. Local newspapers (used by CRSS) might ignore that claim as propaganda.

is an overstatement

A careful read of https://acleddata.com/methodology/fatalities and https://acleddata.com/methodology/sourcing will help to clarify how they filter and validate the new media, double-check multiple sources for each event, and follow always the most conservative estimate.

As a side note:

The PICS weekly reports are quite complete with relevant context and outlook: https://www.picss.net/latest-reports/

One idea for 2026, for anyone who is interested to monitor closely a given conflict, is to check who is the local ACLED partner for the country, and to have a look to their reports. This is probably the earliest and closest we can reasonably get, as the information flows Local Partner --> ACLED --> Wikipedia

@MiguelLM Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) is considered a credible and legitimate resource for data in Pakistan.

https://www.picss.net/latest-reports/pakistan-weekly-situation-report-rising-militancy-pti-power-moves-and-regional-engagements/

@MiguelLM Tnank you for the link, now please

1. Load an .xlsx file

2. Calculate reported deaths in Pakistan, with:

   • Balochistan: results are “more than 2300 (reported)”

   • Pakistan total: roughly “at least 4× more,” but depends on which locations are included

3. Note that these are unverified social-media reports, and therefore overestimates, sometimes by a factor of up to 10.

This question is not about number of death reports on social medias, but about if the conflict in Balochistan, India-Pakistan and so on - question is if any conflicts actually will grow up to become wars

@questionyourself >2,3 k if you include every type of violent events. ~1,1k if you filter battles

I don’t know the exact criteria, but we are not betting on the Excel. We bet on Wikipedia. Let us wait.

The “underverified social media reports” was responded already, so please don’t repeat the same questions unless we have new evidence.

@MiguelLM please provide the full data, there is no easy way to access it - solely for Balochistan (at your screen less than 40 deaths):

https://acleddata.com/system/files/2025-12/Asia-Pacific_aggregated_data_up_to-2025-11-22.xlsx

The issue is not over the reliability of ACLED, which is used wrongly. ACLED publishes pure data (as admitted here by an editor using it) apparently by country (despite repeated requests I have yet to be given specific instructions as to how any of the claimed totals have been obtained, forcing me to make educated guesses) not by conflict. Attempting to match up countries with conflicts is a clear case of WP:SYN, as I will show.

At #Korean conflict numbers don't match it was pointed out by a temporary account that there have been no recent deaths in the Korean conflict, despite our article claiming 30 deaths in 2024 and 1 death in 2025. I speculated that these figures had come from Number of reported fatalities by country-year (registration required, but see directly below). This is a spreadsheet in the following format for the relevant years/country.

@24norwayElimSolberg 40 fatalities since November 15th

The full data is in the link I shared. Filter by Balochistan + 2025 + Battles

@24norwayElimSolberg you edited completely the text of your comment, and now my reply doesn't make sense any longer as it is out of context.

For next time, I think it is clearer to keep your original comment and write a new one.

@MiguelLM original, origin was tricked by your misleading references to raw data, while Wikipedia does not use raw ACLED data for conflict classification.

If any military group associates 0r fighters group’s Telegram channel accidentally posts that they killed 1,000 Palestinian soldiers, that raw data will show it.

But checked data will not, as there will be no confirmation.

Maybe the poster was under the influence of something.

Fighters always overestimate their success. Injuries are not deaths.

https://manifold.markets/PATRICI/is-balochistan-currently-experienci

Is Balochistan currently experiencing a war-level conflict with over 1,000 combatant deaths in 2025?

Given the absence of consistently verified annual fatality data for Balochistan alone, is it appropriate to use nationwide all-over Pakistan conflict-related death totals as a proxy for estimating casualties specifically in Balochistan? The Wikipedia page “List of ongoing armed conflicts” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts covers all active insurgencies in Pakistan. Pakistan is a federation composed of several diverse regions, many of which experience different forms of unrest, including insurgencies, militancy, sectarian violence, and border incidents with Afghanistan and India. Despite this, some market creators such as @Panfilo appear to focus heavily on the conflict in Balochistan while lacking reliable data on annual fatalities specific to groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). Available long-term estimates suggest roughly 2,000 militant deaths over two decades (not a year), in addition to civilian casualties. That makes it a local conflict, not a minor war. Meanwhile, Pakistan faces multiple other insurgencies and terrorist incidents across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, Sindh, and nationwide, which collectively may exceed 1,000 deaths in some years. https://manifold.markets/Panfilo/which-of-these-military-conflicts-w-qZOApZpQCU Is it fair to use nationwide conflict data to represent Balochistan specifically? Short answer: No - using whole-country casualty numbers to describe one province is not methodologically sound or fair. Here’s the poll, please vote. 1. Different conflicts ≠ one conflict Pakistan has multiple, distinct forms of violence: Balochistan insurgency TTP and ISIS-affiliated militancy Sectarian violence across several provinces Tribal, ethnic, and political clashes Border skirmishes with Afghanistan and India Aggregating all deaths ignores the location, actors, and causes of each incident. 2. Misrepresentation risk Using nationwide totals to describe Balochistan: Overstates the scale of the conflict there Misleads readers into thinking the province accounts for all violence Distorts analysis and public understanding 3. Data uncertainty requires caution If no reliable Balochistan-specific yearly data exists, the correct approach is: acknowledge data gaps avoid filling them with unrelated national statistics rely on multi-year averages or verified incident counts from diverse sources 4. Fairness requires accuracy. Misleading estimates should not be accepted, even if someone attempts to overstate the scale of the conflict in Balochistan. https://manifold.markets/Panfilo/which-of-these-military-conflicts-w-qZOApZpQCU [link preview]

by Balochistan do you mean government of Balochistan? (is a province of Pakistan and operates within its federal structure).

If the point is on long-running insurgency in Balochistan, that one referred to as the Balochistan conflict with Balochistan Liberation Army

@24norwayElimSolberg A couple of crazy whales bet Balochistan YES because the name is funny for them and they have plenty of mana, but it should be safe for you to buy more NO. This is basically free mana

@MiguelLM Only the creator and probably you believe that BLA will create a war in Balochistan within 1 month.

According to all criteria (and those market's clarifications too), BLA’s conflict isn’t a war at all.

And even if you somehow add ISIS bombings to make BLA responsible for those, the combined activity of ISIS and BLA still wouldn’t be classified as a war . Clearly the number of deaths is much less than 1,000 per year

@24norwayElimSolberg you don't seem very convinced of your own argument when you don't bet NO taking our limit orders

@MiguelLM The only risk is if the creator starts pulling shenanigans.

For that case, if happen, we can ask the mods to unresolve the market to N/A. And press 1 in ratings.

Those limit orders are there to stay in profit if something like that happens

@24norwayElimSolberg If Wikipedia moves the meta-conflict that includes "Insurgency in Balochistan" to next higher category, Balochistan's answer will resolve Yes. This has been very consistently signalled in this market and its predecessor last year, and will not involve any "shenanigans."

@Panfilo Exactly, Pakistan and not Balochistan only in that scenario.

But currently there is not even a separate Balochistan conflict on that page of Wikipedia.

@MiguelLM It's the market creator, what are you yapping about (yes, yapping, because I can only assume this is some method to try and change the market conditions), it's listed as a subcategory of "Insurgencies in Pakistan"

"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."