There was that article the other day about how "no evidence" is an untenably ambiguous phrase to use in headlines. I wonder whether "scholars now argue" and sim

There was that article the other day about how "no evidence" is an untenably ambiguous phrase to use in headlines. I wonder whether "scholars now argue" and similar constructions might also be an anti-pattern, as they can suggest either a universal consensus or the existence of two scholars on the fringe who hold the view. I suppose the word "argue" may go some distance toward disambiguating in this case, but that could also be interpreted in a few different ways. The article gives more context, but of course most people don't read the full article, thus—at least partly—the need for headlines and subheadlines in the first place. If they are bearing the weight of the whole article, might as well make 'em sturdy.