>> In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources.

> Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back.

Wikipedia still considers the ADL reliable for "going after political opposition" in the "nationalist politics cesspool": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per....

It's super clear that, on Wikipedia, "the rules of the game became the game." Content arguments are won through pretty biased debates behind the scenes on the "reliability" of sources.

Tell that to Elon.

Individual combatants are rarely noteworthy enough to receive news attention. You do hear news articles when some higher-up is killed.

The deaths of children are more newsworthy, in themselves. You rarely hear their names, just the fact that it happened, because they are not otherwise notable as individuals.

Israel accuses the combatants of hiding among civilians, using them as human shields. If true, it would make the deaths of civilians inevitable. That is why hiding among non-combatants is a war crime.

You never see reports of ANY kind of military activity in Gaza. Even the blatantly obvious, the constant rocket launches, just never got reported. None of it.

And the Hezbollah situation is the same. Constant attacks by Hezbollah on Israeli civilians ... no mention anywhere.

Maybe so, but the world often does treat Wikipedia as a reliable source. The editorialization ends up influencing them. This is why you see such heated battles on the talk pages of Wikipedia - there are people actively fighting to take control of this tool. Wikipedia’s founder has been warning the world about increasing bias on Wikipedia for several years now (https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/).

'British Wikipedian, Stuart Marshall, made the final ruling in September, decisively supporting the [Gaza genocide] article’s inclusion. “Based on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place”, Marshall wrote in his decision. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is.”'

From this, maybe it is clearer (but not shorter) to say: ‘It’s not close’ - The inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to Wikipedia's "List of genocides" ends editorial debate

Alt phrasing: Wikipedia's editorial debate ends with the inclusion of "Gaza genocide" to "List of genocides" page

(I'm trying to not repeat "Wikipedia" several times.)

Somewhat related Wikipedia article regarding parsing sentences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence

"Israel committing genocide" concludes Wikipedia, ending debate

Wikipedians were weighing the evidence on whether to call the Gaza thing a genocide or not. They decided to call it a genocide, as the academic evidence/consensus was so far in favor of that, that it wasn't even close.

Two sentences.

It's not close. Israel is committing genocide concludes Wikipedia, ending debate.

First subject 'it' being the debate on genocide or not, second subject Israel.

It could have been written more clearly. Also the word genocide seems to suffering a bit from atrocity inflation a bit like grade inflation where everyone gets As. It used to be for wiping out an ethnic group, it now seems to apply to fighting terrorists with heavy civillian casualties.

This is better than my suggestions. It doesn't include the debate aspect though (...?)