Scheduled to end in 2030, but will resolve early whenever Wikipedia moves a new entry or adds a new bullet point to the Conflict column of the Major Wars or Wars sections on their List of Ongoing Armed Conflicts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
For example, by these standards, both the Russo-Ukrainian War and the renewed Israeli-Palestinian Conflict would have counted as new hot wars (because despite starting in 1948, the I-P Conflict got hot recently and had a new bullet added to its entry). Please only submit new possibilities that are either a unique combination of two or more belligerents, or are a single country (which will only trigger for an internal conflict). Do not paraphrase.
If the update to the Wiki page doesn't add a new belligerent combination or civil conflict to the War or Major War categories, it will not resolve the market. Minor Conflicts can escalate into Wars based on their death toll. If a belligerent combination includes a smaller combination also on the market, they can both resolve yes if the supercategory was added to the list first. Feel free to ask clarifying questions!
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ239 | |
| 2 | Ṁ64 | |
| 3 | Ṁ25 | |
| 4 | Ṁ14 | |
| 5 | Ṁ14 |
New bullet point, resolving for both LvI and LvIvP.
Edit post-resolution: I got strong impressions that people thought Southern Labanon should count as a belligerent since it includes the nation's name and Hezbollah is currently politically legitimate there. But since the bullet is under the P-I conflict, the more-specific multi-belligerent subset could fairly be argued for as well. So I made noticeably less money than if it was pure L-I, but I think this is a fair split.
I've made a decision re: the Lebanon / Israel ambiguity. There needs to be a new entry or bullet point in the Conflict column, or a previously less-deadly entry needs to be upgraded to a war/major war. Those are the only ways to resolve, and concern over belligerent names only matter within that scenario. So, no resolution for now! The description will be clarified as well. Thanks for advice and bets, folks.
Okay let's say the UK had a skirmish with France, but Wikipedia considered the Belligerents to be France (already part of a wider conflict with other Belligerents) and "Northern England," the region of the UK the skirmish took place near/in. Would folks say the UK and France were now at war by the standards of this market? Or no?
It looks like Lebanon has been added to the locations/belligerents for the current Israel/Palestine conflict. Does this count as a change in historiography?
@georgeyw I did have to click through to make sure it was added as a "Belligerent" for consistency, and strangely it seems to have just the region of "Southern Lebanon" and no Lebanese flag, which I did not anticipate. I will not close the market at this time but if things become clearer I could resolve it very soon. Open to arguments as well!
@Panfilo sorry, I'm not sure I follow, what would you resolve it as?
This also isn't a new entry in the list of conflicts, but a new entity being added to an existing entry, so I would argue it isn't a "new" hot war.
@georgeyw In my example, the Israeli-Palestine conflict counts as new because it is a new bullet point, even though its start-of-conflict date was 1948. If the Belligerents category on the conflict page had added Lebanon the country, I would resolve immediately as Yes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is using Lebanon as a location but Southern Lebanon as the Belligerent, which is a weird corner case from my PoV.
@Panfilo The table refers to locations, not belligerents, which is why Lebanon is listed there but not in the war. The conflict happens in Lebanon as well because there's been bombardments of Lebanon, but it's only Hezbollah that is involved, not Lebanon as a whole.
Anyways, my take would be to defer to the spirit of the question and count this as a minor change, at least as of right now. Maybe more significant involvement of Hezbollah will change that
@Shump I've been talking on Discord too and I think yeah, it's not a "new hot war" but it is frustrating due to how much I leaned on Wikipedia in the description. Including for me as a better!
@BaryLevy Due to the way Wikipedia counts belligerants, it is very very likely but not guaranteed. If the Lebanese flag or name of the country shows up in the entry, you're good.
Lebanon vs. Israel is way undervalued compared to this market https://manifold.markets/Haws/will-isreal-and-lebanon-go-to-war-i?r=UGFuZmlsbw
@Stralor Yes, assuming they are treated as a belligerant by Wikipedia. This is also how ambiguity of outbreak date and faction delineation will be resolved.