Do you agree or disagree with the following edit to the lead?
"Pope Joan is now widely accepted to be fictional, though the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film" → "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers, no modern authority believes that she existed, though the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film." Scolaire (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• The current wording, "is now widely accepted", is woolly. The proposed wording clarifies what the exception is to the "widely accepted" view: at least two popular writers [Edit: 12:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC) who are or soon will be dealt with in the article body, hence WP:WEASEL does not apply] are acknowledged to be in the "apart from" category, though it is not proposed to expand on their views in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• I disagree with including Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers because it is supported by WP:WEASELWORDS and if it is only a few non-academic, popular writers then the opinion of these few at the lead is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and compared to the body of modern scholarship is simply not worthy of mention at the lead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Neither wording is good. Both are "woolly". Both "is now widely accepted" and "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers" are weasel words. Weak support for Scolaire's edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Both "is now widely accepted" and "Apart from a few non-academic, popular writers" are weasel words. I disagree. The former is a fair assessment of the state of the current scholarship, which is supported in the article body with reliable sources and represents the opinions of all modern scholars. The latter uses the weasel expression Apart from a few non-academic... to give undue weight to two, non-academic lay people. There is a big difference between the two cases. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Dr.K.:@Robert McClenon: I have edited my opening statement to show why I do not believe my wording is WEASEL. "A few writers" in this case refers to specific, notable people who will be dealt with by name in the body of the article. Scolaire (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. The existing construction is suitable and more streamlined. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I argued at dispute resolution, this is a minor viewpoint that's not significant enough to the topic to be singled in the lead. Doing so would give it undue weight. In DR, I brought up Thomas F.X. Noble's survey on the topic "Why Pope Joan?", which spends 4 pages (10 paragraphs) on the various 20th/21st century viewpoints on Pope Joan. It mentions Cross and Stanford in one of the paragraphs on pop culture viewpoints. There are various other viewpoints that are far more significant to the topic than the belief that Joan was real – namely academic and feminist approaches – but they aren't included in the lead at all. I think Cross and Stanford are adequately covered under the line, "the legend remains influential in art, literature, drama, and film" (Cross, especially, is much more significant for her popular novel than her belief that Joan was real).--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having read the discussion I believe that the original lead is the most suitable for the lead. Pope Joan being fictional does seem to to widely accepted. While, there are individuals who disagree they are in the minority and can be addressed further into the article.Sue De Nimes (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose. Original is better. Popular, non-academic writers are handled under the "still influential" wording. Also, "widely accepted" already indicates that there is the possibility of minority dissent. Highlighting two individuals is undue weight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose. Original wording is clearer and conveys the information more directly. Agree with others that the edit looks woolly. Macrowriter (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Original wording is clear, direct, and consistent with the article's content/references. Altered wording adds little imo. Fyddlestix (talk)
• Opppose. I concur with those above me. The former statement is clear and unambiguous. The latter leaves me with a stilted view/opinion that does not seem to be reflected in the sources cited here. Madeinmontana (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)