This question resolves to the time period in which the New York Times unequivocally reports that an Israeli ground invasion into Rafah has begun.
Reports of air strikes, raids, covert operations, etc will not be sufficient for a resolution. In general, ambiguous situations in which the NYT does not use the word "invasion" will not be sufficient to resolve this market.
This market will resolve to the time period in which the qualifying reporting is published, which may not be the same day that the reported events occurred.
If a ground invasion begins on a Sunday but the Times does not report on it until Monday morning, this market resolves to the week containing the Monday the reporting appeared on the Times' website. Op-Eds and similar will not be sufficient for resolution.
Resolution will be based on Eastern Time (UTC -04:00). If there is no invasion reported before June 1st, this market resolves to "Not before June".
Related questions
@hidetzugu It sounds like the Times is ready to declare this additional push a full invasion, if it happens. They're still equivocating in that very article, but we're clearly getting very close to the red line.
@ManifoldPolitics A good test when making a market is trying substituting words. Eg, what is the difference between these two sentences:
It rained today.
It unequivocally rained today.
a curious semantic conflict in the latest NYT article about Rafah (these are from the same piece only paragraphs apart)
this is from an article about the army taking over the border:
will it count for this market?
That is very close, we're definitely in the weeds now. However, I think this still isn't enough yet.
It's a single use of the word with the "limited" modifier and it's describing the events that began on May 6th, and Times has otherwise distinguished those events from the anticipated invasion.
The criteria call for the reporting to be unequivocal, so the Times needs to be consistently describing Israeli actions as an invasion and not describing them as other more ambiguous terms. If they just go back to describing things as "incursions" and "operations" after this article, then things aren't unequivocal yet.
We should watch closely to see what they say next.
@ManifoldPolitics oh so now we went from arguing on synonyms to stating that adjectives dismiss the noun ? Would "temporary invasion" not be considered? What about "illegal invasion"? Would you also consider "BRUTAL invasion" to not be an invasion ?
@hidetzugu The main thing here is that this article is describing events from last week that the NYT have consistently described as not an invasion in all other reporting.
This might represent a change in their editorial position, or it might be one journalist sticking a toe over his editor's line. We need to see more reporting.
@ManifoldPolitics I was unaware "be reported" implied "multiple times" and "every editor in the building agrees". If the NYT bankrups tonight will you claim it was never reported?
@hidetzugu The question is about the Times as an institution making a broad choice to unequivocally use a politically charged term. Right now, it's not clear that they have done this.
And yes, if the Times suddenly stops existing then they can't report anything.
@hidetzugu It's a subjective market. You're betting less on ground truth and more on how joshua is going to resolve.
It's a social dynamics market, really. What biases do you think are in play. This is what you are betting on.
False. It's a subjective market as it relies on personal opinions. Objective would be is 5 > 4. Subjective is whether NYT is using the word 'Invasion' in some underdefined manner. https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/when-will-a-rafah-ground-invasion-b#7ygypb6fnor
@gpt_news_headlines People don't dispute objective markets, because they are based on verifiable facts with precise boundaries. Election markets are 99% objective. This market is about 10% objective.
@gpt_news_headlines The wording of the question is not that subjective. If the question is when will a specific publication classify an event as a "ground invasion" and, after calling it an incursion for a while, they start using incursion and invasion interchangeably, they have called it an invasion (multiple times by now).
If @ManifoldPolitics wanted to ask "when will the NYT have ground invasion in the title?" (which is what presume is his holdup), he should have worded it like that.
@hidetzugu He didn't define it precisely because it's a subjective market. His plan all along was just to resolve it based on his opinion.
@hidetzugu The subjective word here is "unequivocally" which is basically meaningless in this context.
frustratingly, NYT is frequently using the synonym "incursion" to describe the recent activity at the border crossing, while at the same time saying it's not a full-scale invasion.
reports are so far about the border and the outer edges of Rafah, but sounds like the operation continues
is this enough for resolution here?
pulled this screenshot from the IDF Telegram group, linked in the article:
@ManifoldPolitics assume that means OpEds published on NYT from an official columnist don't count?
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/07/opinion/thepoint?searchResultPosition=1#rafah-border-aid-starvation
@shankypanky I wouldn't count that as reporting an invasion, but good catch. I'll edit into the description that op-eds don't count.