'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

To me the scholarly perspective is that antisemitism framed the result and academics certainly are not exempt here.

It is utterly ridiculous to frame the war Israel did not start as a genocide or attempt at genocide.

There is a difference in the behavior in the West Bank, but only if you widen the definition of genocide as well, which I would not recommend.

There certainly is no consensus among "experts" here. There are only interests and some of those have problems with Jews. Nothing new and a bad day for Wikipedia, which already had problems with any politicized content in the first place.

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.

"Israel committing genocide" concludes Wikipedia, ending debate

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.