The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, be moved to a different shortcut name or deleted altogether?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z-RfC:_Should_shortcut_WP:PROVEIT_be_changed\/deleted","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T00:38:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","c-Jclemens-2010-03-07T00:39:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T00:46:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","c-Crum375-2010-03-07T00:53:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","c-Blueboar-2010-03-07T01:41:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","c-LeadSongDog-2010-03-07T04:32:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• Move or Delete. (as nominator of this Rfc) Please reference a previous discussion on this Talk page here. A consensus apparently cannot be reached on this issue. This is a longstanding shortcut that may have been causing confusion and incivil confrontations among Wikipedia editors for a long, long time. A most recent example of either misunderstanding or misuse by a relatively new editor can be found on the Talk page of a sometimes very controversial article. It is my contention that this shortcut should be deleted/moved in order to eliminate future confusion and/or misuse.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• oppose I can see a clear consensus already against any change, i.e. only one editor for it. FWIW I also cannot see a reason to change anything.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T00:38:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T00:38:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
• Oppose Consensus most clearly has been reached. While I don't mind you seeking more input in such an approved manner, there's a clear feeling that the misuse you allege is simply not enough reason to delete a long-standing redirect. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T00:39:00.000Z","author":"Jclemens","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Jclemens-2010-03-07T00:39:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:13:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-07T00:39:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sorry, then I must be totally misunderstanding WP:CONSENSUS!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T02:13:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:13:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-07T00:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:13:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

I believe Jclemens means to say that there is a general feeling that you have not adequately addressed the concerns raised. Consensus does not necessarily mean that everyone is happy with the result, but it does mean that all rational arguments have been duly considered. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:13:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jclemens-2010-03-07T04:40:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yep. Consensus is not unanimity. It allows for good faith (yet hopelessly minority) objections. We're not the UN here--there's no particular holdout veto power. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T04:40:00.000Z","author":"Jclemens","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Jclemens-2010-03-07T04:40:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-07T04:40:00.000Z"]}}-->

JC, don't you think the UN thing is a little strong? <g> Consensus, by definition, actually does infer a unanimity of sorts. This unanimity automatically requires giving a little here, taking a little there, until all parties either agree to what usually turns out to be a compromise, or they just get tired and hang up. At any rate, even if you end up with a small minority that still feels strongly about their position, then instead of a consensus, there is the potential for "majority rule - stomp all over the minority". And on Wikipedia, I've found that this is often mistaken for a "consensus". Let's not let that be the case here, okay?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-07T04:40:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

I'm afraid you're missing my point: Your argument (the proposal doesn't give a reason, BTW) is that WP:PROVEIT is harmful. Several opposers have stated their belief that the problem is not big enough to warrant removing the shortcut. So far, you can point to only one example, and that one has been challenged. This means you haven't addressed a reasonable objection to your proposal. Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T11:32:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z"]}}-->

My argument (the proposal itself has to be neutral with no reason; the reason can be given in a later comment) is that WP:PROVEIT is two-faced. It has two possible meanings in the context of this argument. It can mean what it is supposed to mean, i.e., "prove the verifiability of the claim", or it can confusingly and/or misusingly mean what it is not supposed to mean, i.e., "prove that the claim is true". The one example I used in the above conversation cannot be seriously challenged because, as you know from first hand experience with editor Steaphen, he was misusing the shortcut. Either he was confused about its meaning or he knowingly misused it. Either way, the shortcut was being misused. I've provided three more examples below. Reasonable objections? Let's see, there are four "opposes" so far: One and two speak of a "clear consensus" that just does not exist yet, not if I read WP:CONSENSUS correctly. And one just says he sees no reason to change it, while the other cites that it is a longstanding shortcut. I don't see a valid objection from either editor. The third "oppose" just brings out that an editor must prove that a claim is verified, and that removing the shortcut would mean that the editor no longer has to do so, which is clearly wrong, because the removal of this Janus-faced shortcut would in no way alter the WP:V policy itself. The fourth "oppose" is, essentially, just a determined "NO", which is not an objection. So far there is no specific challenge that I haven't already adequately covered that I can see. If you see an objection that I haven't covered, then please point it out to me. And how about you, Paradoc? I don't see precisely what your stand on this issue is yet. You appear to be leaning toward the "oppose" side and arguing against my proposition, but you have not "officially" stated your position.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T11:32:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T11:32:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• comment looking at that link the user asked to PROVIT has been blocked for his behaviour, including refusing to provide sources [4], so I doubt it's a problem of simply misunderstanding.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T00:46:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T00:46:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T00:46:00.000Z"]}}-->

In that case you're probably correct, Mr. B. However either way, whether the editor misunderstood WP:PROVEIT or misused it, this calls for, at the very least, more clarification in the section of this policy to which the SHORTCUT points, and at most the moving of the SHORTCUT to a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T00:46:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

"a better name that cannot be confounding nor abused": A challenge! Provide one, give it your very best shot. I'll show to you that it is totally confounding, and then I'll abuse it. A shiny new € coin in my pocket says I can. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z"]}}-->

I've already suggested some, but just for you, Paradoc, I'll repeat 'em: WP:CHECKIT— WP:AFFIRMIT— WP:CONFIRMIT— WP:SUPPORTIT, and one more... WP:VERIFYIT. I suppose with a little effort, you would be able to do as you say, however I don't see how anybody would be able to challenge the fact that all of these are SO much LESS confusing and have SO little possible abuse potential than the two-faced misnomer, PROVEIT.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T02:23:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z-1"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

"you would be able to do as you say": That means my money is safe with you, I take it? ... Ah, what the hell: "WP:CONFIRMIT? But I can't, I can only provide sources!" and "You can easily WP:CONFIRMIT, just try it for yourself, and you'll see that it is better than the real thing.".

"abuse potential": Erm, kitchen knives? Earbuds? Love letters? Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T10:36:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:04:00.000Z-1","replies":[]}}-->

• Oppose Clear consensus over time is to use this very informative shortcut. Removing it would imply that the editor adding material to an article does not need to prove that it's properly sourced, which is clearly wrong. Crum375 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T00:53:00.000Z","author":"Crum375","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Crum375-2010-03-07T00:53:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T01:59:00.000Z-Crum375-2010-03-07T00:53:00.000Z"]}}-->

As I noted in the other section above, the difficulty in understanding lies in the double-meaning of the PROVEIT shortcut, which makes it a misnomer. It can mean "prove that the claim has a reliable source", or it can mean "prove that the claim is true". So yes, it can be very difficult to get it right for new editors, and the shortcut can be abused by more experienced editors.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T01:59:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T01:59:00.000Z-Crum375-2010-03-07T00:53:00.000Z","replies":["c-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T01:59:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Anything and everything, including every single shortcut on WP, can be misunderstood by novices. This is why we have a link from WP:PROVEIT to the actual words of the policy, which they can read at their leisure. Crum375 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z","author":"Crum375","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T01:59:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:18:00.000Z-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z"]}}-->

If we can, over time, make improvements that make all that "anything and everything" less misunderstood by novices, then aren't we obligated to do so? Don't we have a responsibility as "editors" to improve every aspect of this encyclopedia in every way we can in order to make it less and less confusing, more and more clear, concise and helpful, both to readers and to other editors?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T02:18:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:18:00.000Z-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:04:00.000Z","replies":["c-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:51:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:18:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Certainly, we are always open to improvements. But you say that something which is very straightforward and linked to the complete explanation may be confusing for a novice. I believe that there is nothing on this planet which can't be confusing for a novice. We need to focus on the big picture: does it convey a clear message as a useful reminder to someone who has read the linked text (and an invitation to read to someone who hasn't)? I think it does, and apparently the other Opposers here feel the same. Crum375 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T02:51:00.000Z","author":"Crum375","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:51:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T02:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:20:00.000Z-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:51:00.000Z"]}}-->

Not so very straightforward, editor Crum, for in this context, the PROVEIT shortcut can easily be construed in the manner you describe, and just as easily be misconstrued as the imperative need to prove the statement itself rather than just to prove that the statement is verifiable. PROVEIT is therefore a misnomer that we all would be better off without.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T06:20:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:20:00.000Z-Crum375-2010-03-07T02:51:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• No the shortcut should not be changed/deleted - there is no need (see above for further disucssion). Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T01:41:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-07T01:41:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• Remove from displayed list in WP:V - No need to break any existing or even future usage, let's just not encourage its usage. Even a cursory review of WP:List of shortcuts makes it obvious that this shortcut name, an imperative verb, is absolutely not consistent with the other shortcuts. User:LeadSongDog come howl 04:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T04:32:00.000Z","author":"LeadSongDog","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-LeadSongDog-2010-03-07T04:32:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T00:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:09:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-07T04:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"User:LeadSongDog"}}-->

So we should remove WP:IAR and WP:LETGO too ? Most shortcuts are nouns as most pages are concepts ("verifiability") or things (noticeboard, project, portal). But if a page name is an action like "ignore all rules", or can be handily abbreviated using a verb such as "let (it) go", then they're fine. I know WP:LETGO is not official policy but the page is referenced far more than many policy pages, including already here. Another example that is also appropriate here is WP:GETOVERIT.

Agree. Thank you, LSD, it's not so lonely at the top anymore! <g>

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T06:09:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:09:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-07T04:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jclemens-2010-03-07T06:35:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:09:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Here's a hint: when you're arguing as a lone voice in the face of reasoned and polite opposition, such that one editor who halfway agrees with the RfC you started is an encouragement, you might just want to read and consider WP:STICK. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T06:35:00.000Z","author":"Jclemens","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Jclemens-2010-03-07T06:35:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:09:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:49:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-07T06:35:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you, JC, for that vote of confidence! I shall be dead certain the horse is dead when, at the very least, the opposition begins to understand my position enough so that I don't feel like a stomped-all-over minority. The PROVEIT shortcut is a Janus-faced misnomer that must be dealt with in some way. As editors we should all feel better off without it.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T06:49:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T06:49:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-07T06:35:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• Comment. In the conversation previous to this RfC, editor Blueboar asked for examples of what I'm on about. So I went to the "What links here" page of the WP:PROVEIT Redirect. I went through the first 21 links and found the following facts:

1. In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is true.
2. In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is true.
3. In this Talk page section an editor is clearly misusing the shortcut to get an editor to WP:PROVEIT using Wikilawyering techniques and making straw-man arguments.

• Three out of the first twenty-one. That is almost 15% or 1 out of 7 (that's not as good as I'm doing votewise, but it does seem to be a significant number). So is anyone ready to at least concede that I might have a strong and valid point? valid, at least?
  

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T10:19:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T10:19:00.000Z-random_break_in_RFC","replies":["c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T10:33:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T10:19:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

The first one is "Now kindly stop stalling and just quote from the papers where Blench and Bender in particular have "cited seriously" Bernal's Kenyan Urheimat theory for AA as you've claimed above. I'm not bossing you around here; I'm simply invoking WP:PROVEIT." I.e. asking for citations with an appropriate shortcut. Both editors understand it exactly. I.e. in that case you really do not have a point.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T10:33:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T10:33:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T10:19:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T10:55:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T10:33:00.000Z","c-Blueboar-2010-03-07T17:07:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T10:33:00.000Z"]}}-->

There are other instances in that section where the editor who imposes WP:PROVEIT asks that the claims be proved.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T10:55:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T10:55:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T10:33:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T11:28:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T10:55:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Ok, then WP:PROVEIT. ;) Sorry, but that's the whole point of it. Without evidence, everything said is just an assertion.

The second is a misuse? 'User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.', that looks entirely appropriate to me.

In the third example, an editor was accused of wikilawyering after demanding that citations have page numbers added to them. Again, this looks like an entirely valid use. The idea of evidence is to present evidence, not to say "oh, you can find the evidence out there, just go look".

That's the problem with evidence, sometimes people pick it apart. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T11:28:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T11:28:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T10:55:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T12:06:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T11:28:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yes, the second example is clear misuse, though I cannot tell whether it is accidental or purposeful. "if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it." This is a clear call for the editor to WP:PROVEIT that the claim is true. In the third example, the editor was actually and knowingly (I thought it was quite obvious) misusing the shortcut. There is no question in my mind that all three examples, plus Steaphen's misuse, are crystal-clear cases of misusing the shortcut, which is [[WP:PROVEIT|CLEAR-CUT PROOF]] that my proposal deserves serious attention.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T12:06:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T12:06:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T11:28:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T13:04:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T12:06:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Let me try to muddle your brain a little. It is becoming clear that the question of what constitutes a misuse of WP:PROVEIT is the bone of contention here.

In the second example, the request is for "evidence" (as in "sources"), not for "truth". Actually, this one can't be proved any other way, as any evidence would have to be a piece of writing anyway.

"editor was actually and knowingly (I thought it was quite obvious)": Obvious. Obvious? Uh, what's obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to someone else. It sure isn't to me. What is the case for considering the accusations valid? Really, I don't see it, but I may be myopic here. Paradoctor (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T13:04:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-07T13:04:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T12:06:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I have read the discussions Paine linked to... here is my take: in two of the three examples, the editor who is using the link to "PROVEIT" was asking for a citation to back an unsourced statement... a proper use of the link. In the other, we had an unsourced statement that was challenged, a citation that was added in response, and challenger then linked PROVEIT as part of a request for a specific page number and a quote ... because he doubted that the supplied source actually supported the original statement. All three were somewhat heated discussions over somewhat controvercial unsourced statements... In other words all three were appropriate situations for an editor to say "Oh yeah? PROVEIT". Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T17:07:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-07T17:07:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T10:33:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T23:31:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-07T17:07:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you, Blueboar for taking the time to read the examples. The problem, at least with the first two examples, is that the wording was wrong. It may have been accidental, and it probably was accidental, but both editors were very clear that the other editors had to verify that the claims were true, and not that they had to verify that the claims had been made. This is the essence of WP:V, that verification of TRUTH is not sought, ONLY verification that the claim was made.

Suppose you and I were editing the Abortion article. I added a claim to the page and reliably sourced it. You read it and you refuse to believe that the claim is true, even though it's reliably sourced. So you hunt down a counter-claim that says just the opposite of my claim, and you find that the source you came across is a very reliable one. So you add the counter-claim to the Abortion article along with an inline citation. As you are well aware, this is how it's supposed to work. Wikipedia is not interested in which claim is right, wrong, true or false. WP:V is very clear that a challenged claim must simply be verified that it was made, and not necessarily verified that it is true. And in the first two examples, it was the truth of the claim that was mistakenly sought.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T23:31:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T23:31:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-07T17:07:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

I afraid none of Paine's three examples above hold up to closer examination, as the participants in each discussion were all long-established editors who would well understand what the shortcut meant. All but one was over a year, and that one has thousands of edits. Even I assume that anyone who has edited here for more than a few months has incurred some thickening of the skin, although it still discomfits me that that should need to be the case. If examples are needed they should be better than these. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T17:46:00.000Z","author":"LeadSongDog","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-LeadSongDog-2010-03-07T17:46:00.000Z-random_break_in_RFC","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T22:34:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-07T17:46:00.000Z"],"displayName":"User:LeadSongDog"}}-->

On the contrary, LSD, close examination shows that in the first two examples, one editor was saying to another editor that a claim had to be proven to be true by using a verifiable source. This is NOT what WP:V is about. Read the first sentence of the policy. In each of those two cases an editor misused the shortcut to get another editor to PROVE that a claim was TRUE, not that the claim was just verifiable. Why is the difference so difficult to understand? If the shortcut is used to say, "You have to WP:PROVEIT that a claim was made," then it is being used correctly. And out of those 21 links, there were 12 cases where the shortcut was used correctly (there were six of the 21 pages that no longer had WP:PROVEIT on the page in spite of the page being on the "What links here" list). If the shortcut is used to say, "You have to WP:PROVEIT that a claim is TRUE," then it is being used incorrectly. And in the first two examples I noted, that was precisely what had taken place. Two editors had said to two other editors that they had to PROVE that a claim was TRUE, not just verifiable, TRUE. And the third case was an example of a different way the shortcut can be misused. Let's throw that one out, because there are probably several shortcuts that can be Wikilawyered around.

So where does this leave us? There are two clear cases of abuse out of 21, well, actually out of 14, since as I said, 6 of the pages didn't have the shortcut on them anymore. So there are 21 total pages, minus 6 no-show pages, minus the one example we threw out. This leaves 14 pages.

There is no challenging the fact that out of those 14 pages, fully 12 were examples of the shortcut being used correctly. However, the undeniable fact remains that on 2 out of the 14 pages, WP:PROVEIT was being misused. That is still 14.3% or 1 out of 7.

I'm not saying that those two editors who used the shortcut to try to get other editors to prove that a claim was TRUE did so with any malice aforethought. If they were asked, I'm sure that they would tell us that they merely miswrote the words, and that they really meant that verification of the claim was needed. It would further be hoped that the other editors would have the savvy to actually READ the section and the policy. But none of that is to the point. The point is that, because this shortcut is two-faced, because it can be misconstrued either by accident or with malice aforethought, then it is a misnomer that has to be dealt with in some way. It should be deleted, moved, or at the very least, removed from the shortcut box. If we opt for that third choice, than I would further ask that experienced editors who draw this shortcut like a gun (honestly, I'm grinning, no incivility intended) be extremely careful that they use it only to ask for VERIFIABILITY of a claim, and not for the TRUTH of a claim.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T22:34:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T22:34:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-07T17:46:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ward20-2010-03-07T23:09:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T22:34:00.000Z","c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T23:26:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T22:34:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

I understand the objection to WP:PROVEIT, but I also understand the unwilliness to let go of long used terminolgy. What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is? Over time editors may come to a consensus to use that shorcut, and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not and WP:PROVEIT will win out. Ward20 (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T23:09:00.000Z","author":"Ward20","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ward20-2010-03-07T23:09:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T22:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T01:10:00.000Z-Ward20-2010-03-07T23:09:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you, editor Ward20, for your understanding and helpful sentiments. I would gladly settle for the two-faced shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, to be removed from the shortcut box. That way, experienced editors could still use it to point to that valuable section of the WP:V policy (and hopefully they would use it sparingly and only to ask for verifiability of a claim and not for the truth of it), and it won't be visible to less experienced editors who now see Policy shortcuts: WP:PROVEIT jumping out at them like a sore thumb.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T01:10:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T01:10:00.000Z-Ward20-2010-03-07T23:09:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

You're going to have to provide quotes, not just links to pages. As far as I can see on none of those pages is WP:PROVEIT being misused. In every case the poster is asking for sources. WP:PROVEIT is a shortcut for this and a link to the policy, and is understood by all parties.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T23:26:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T23:26:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T22:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T23:56:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T23:26:00.000Z"]}}-->

No problemo, John. From the first example:

What you don't seem to understand Andrew, is that saying that Bernal "is cited in the major reviews of this field and taken seriously by the major authors in this field" is not the same thing as actually proving it. You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously as a linguist, and more specifically, that his Kenyan Urheimat theory for the origins of Afro-Asiatic is not a tiny minority view. You have been unable to prove either one of the two things, much less the latter. Instead, you link me to an interview with Ehret saying that he basically appreciates Bernal when it comes to his take on the "Egyptian influence on Greece" although a boat-load of other professionals he collectively labels "Classicists" apparently do not. There is no mention of Bernal's standing in the linguistic community, much less of his very idiosyncratic Kenyan Urheimat theory or his equally fringe "Rift Valley Urheimat theory (you write that "Martin Bernal came to argue for this Urheimat based upon perceived connections between Afroasiatic and Khoisan languages" -- that's classic fringe). Please, for the umpteenth time, stop stalling and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it's clear that the edit cannot remain in place.

— Causteau (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of asking another editor to PROVE that a claim is TRUE, not just to verify that the claim was made. Now, from the second example:

Though Catherine may have been regent for the Kingdom in 1513-1514 and was certainly Queen Consort at the time, it does not necessarily follow that she bore the title of Queen Regent. For example, the Prince of Wales was regent of the United Kingdom from 1811 to 1820 and was known as the Prince Regent, but Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, who was regent of that kingdom from 1934 to 1941, was not. User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.

— Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the editor was asking that the claim be evidenced to be TRUE, and not just that the claim be verified to have been made. As I said above, both of these editors were probably acting in good faith, and most likely they both meant to mean just that the claims should be reliably sourced. However, their wording clearly shows that they were also calling for whether or not the claims were TRUE. So they were either consciously or unconsciously misusing the WP:PROVEIT shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-07T23:56:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T23:56:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-07T23:26:00.000Z","replies":["c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-08T00:06:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T23:56:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

The quotes are "and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT" and "the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT". In both cases they are simply asking for sources, and pointing to the relevant policy. That's no different in intent to putting a { {cn} } next to a questionable article paragraph. And this is clearly the intent, and is understood as such in each case.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T00:06:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-08T00:06:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-07T23:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:19:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-08T00:06:00.000Z"]}}-->

Please keep in mind, JB, that of the first 21 links to the shortcut, 12 were used correctly, i.e., in all twelve discussions, WP:PROVEIT was used only to ask for verifiability using reliable sources. The above two cases, when you read the entire quotations, clearly ask for more than just verifiability. They clearly ask that the claims be verified to be TRUE. And this is not proper usage of the shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T00:19:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:19:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-08T00:06:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T00:31:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:19:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Paine, the problem is that you are interpreting their statements. None of them mentions either "true" or "truth", so there is no question of any literal statement. If you wish to assert that their statements amount to demanding proof of truth, rather than proof that the challenged statements were indeed what was said, you need to provide evidence that your interpretation is the only appropriate one. So far, your argument is basically, "why, isn't it obvious?". I'm afraid not. Paradoctor (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T00:31:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T00:31:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:19:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:54:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T00:31:00.000Z"]}}-->

Maybe you're right, Paradoc, for I certainly seem to be missing something. Let's see, first of all, your premise that the actual words "true" and "truth" must be used for me to make my assertion. This I don't follow. ". . . not the same thing as actually proving it. You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously . . ." "You have been unable to prove . . ." To me, the editor is using "prove" and "proving" in the incorrect sense as regards this discussion. The editor is asking, NOT that the other editor verify that the claim is valid, but instead that the editor PROVE that the claim is true. And in the second example, ". . .if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it". Here the editor does not, to me, appear to be asking for mere verification of the claim, but for "evidence" that the claim is true. So I guess I'm just not getting how this can be seen as anything other than, in both cases, editors asking that a claim be proved to be true rather than just asking for a reliable source to support that the claim has been made.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T00:54:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:54:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T00:31:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T21:40:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:54:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

"your premise": No such thing, I'm afraid. I merely stated that the assertion is not in the words you refer to, but rather in your interpretation of the words actually written. It follows that we're talking about a problem of interpretation.

'the editor is using "prove" and "proving" in the incorrect sense': That is the thing we're rotating around.

So, how is the editor in the "Bernal" case using "prove"? Apparently, s/he wants to see a proof that "Bernal is taken seriously". I submit that this is mere shorthand for "please provide citations to reliable literature that makes the assertion that Bernal is taken seriously". So, the subject of proof is not Bernal's reputation, but the existence of citable assertions about it.

In the "Catherine" case, we have the same thing: The "evidence" requested is not evidence that she was queen regent, but that there is literature claiming this. In this particular case, a primary source in the form of a document assigning the title to her would also be acceptable, but I doubt that this is what was asked.

You sure make this discussion interesting. :) Paradoctor (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T21:40:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T21:40:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-08T00:54:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:32:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T21:40:00.000Z"]}}-->

As do you, Paradoc. You do seem to forget though, that I went through 21 links to find these two cases. And at the same time I found 12 cases where the WP:PROVEIT shortcut was used correctly. This has to give you the inkling that I know the difference. The above two cases definitely are requests for verification. However they are also clear-cut, no-interpretation-required requests that the claims be PROVED or EVIDENCED to be TRUE. I do know the difference, and there is a clear difference between these two cases and the other twelve.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T04:32:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:32:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T21:40:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

"the inkling that I know the difference": I agree that you know a difference, but since we disagree, it's evident that our criteria are different. As you refer to cases I haven't seen, it might be helpful if you cited one of the cases where we seem to agree, so we can compare corpses. Currently, I have no idea of the criteria you apply in your determination that the present cases are misuses. Paradoctor (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":12,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T06:24:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z"]}}-->

The cases you haven't seen are:

1. Talk:Epitaph
2. Talk:Original sin
3. Talk:Yom Kippur War
4. Talk:Fasces
5. Talk:Spanking
6. Talk:Nuclear winter
7. Talk:Anti-Arabism
8. Talk:Counter-terrorism
9. Talk:Michael Collins (Irish leader)
10. Talk:Genocide denial
11. Talk:Axl Rose
12. Talk:Acupuncture

Use your browser's search function with PROVEIT in the field and you should be taken to each instance of the shortcut's usage on these pages. You will find that in each of these cases, the shortcut was used correctly, i.e., it was used to request ONLY VERIFICATION that the claim was made, and NOT that the claim had to be PROVED to be true.

And lest we forget, there is also the example on the Zeno's paradoxes Talk page. Editor Steaphen used the shortcut to demand proof that the claim(s) was TRUE. That's actually 3 out of 15, and leaves us with 20%. Twenty per-cent! Possibly 1 out of 5 times the PROVEIT shortcut has been misused over the years! The numbers seem to get better and better (or worse and worse from my perspective).

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T06:24:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":13,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T06:24:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T06:24:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Sidenote: I'm not sure your chracterization of Steaphen's usage is correct.

Main course: I had a look at the examples, and I don't see what specific criteria you applied:

1. "Axl Rose is a tenor 100%" ... "Once again: WP:PROVEIT" [5]
2. "Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where terrorists are said to be based." ... "This paragraph falls fouls of WP:PROVEIT and WP:OR." [6]
3. "your presumption that the ADL is Anti-Arab does not require rebutting (WP:PROVEIT)" [7]
4. "Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT." [8]

No. 4 is a clear misuse, the issue here is WP:DUE.

I don't see any substantial difference between your two examples and #1-3, in each case we have the request to prove a statement of fact. If there is a difference, please explain it. Paradoctor (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":14,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T06:24:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z"]}}-->

When I read those examples and the other cases, I was unable to justify their usage as specifically calling for the truth of the claim itself. The two cases I did choose I felt were very clear-cut examples of asking for both verifiability of the claim and for the truth of the claim. And you don't seem to agree that editor Steaphen used WP:PROVEIT to call for the math claim to be true? <sigh> Then I may as well give up.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":15,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-12T00:49:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

"I may as well give up": Forgive me for saying so, but how can you give up if you haven't even started? I asked you to "explain it". Your reply was "I was unable to justify their usage". Ok, but that explains nothing, it only restates what you did in terms meaningful only to you. Where are the reasons? I. e., something like "editor X said 's', which by this or that rule of English usage has to be interpreted as t, which violates "r" in part p of policy P". This gives me text I can read, and respond to. What you did in the above reply was in effect saying "I chose the two examples and not the other because they looked to me like they support my position.". Help me! Paradoctor (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T00:49:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":16,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-12T00:49:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T01:27:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-12T00:49:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well, let's see... in the Rose example, it was very clear to me that the WP:PROVEIT asking editor was not asking for truth, but just for verifiability:

In your 2nd example, the editor was just asking "Who says . . ." and clearly using the WP:PROVEIT shortcut correctly.

Your 3rd example, is actually a very good example of correct usage. The editor used it in the same manner one might use WP:BURDEN or WP:BOP.

The 4th example:

is again, just a request for the other editor to verify the relevance (verifiability) of the claim. So all those appeared to me to be correct usages of the shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T01:27:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":17,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T01:27:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-12T00:49:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

I don't see why we should ignore an editor just because he is "not in good standing". Misuse is misuse. Either Steaphen was confused about the shortcut (IMO the most likely) or he misused the shortcut with malice aforethought. Either way, Steaphen's usage represents what I consider to be a classic case of misuse of the shortcut. That discussion was indeed why I came to this Talk page to attempt an improvement.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T01:33:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T01:33:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-12T00:54:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Before we get into this further, let's get back to brass tacks... Even if we can pick holes in Paine's current examples, I am sure that he will be able to find other examples where this shortcut has been misused. To me, the occasional misuse does not matter... I think all the situations where editors have used "PROVEIT" appropriately far outweigh the occasional misuse. The fact is, there are more than enough situations where saying "PROVEIT" was, is, and will continue to be both appropriate and necessary that the occasional misuse can essentially be discounted.

Paine... It is obvious that you feel strongly about this, but pushing for it may be hurting your case more than helping it ... I know it has had a negative effect on me... shifting me from "I don't see the need, but I don't care enough to strongly object" towards a more solid "I oppose the removal". I think it is unlikely that you will gain a consensus to remove this link... so perhaps it would be better to drop the idea? Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T16:53:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-08T16:53:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-12T00:54:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T21:50:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-08T16:53:00.000Z"]}}-->

"he will be able to find other examples": Maybe, but apart from my personal preference for convincing over discouraging, please note that he already made a statistical argument that these two examples would constitute sufficient reason to believe there is a significant problem with the shortcut. Before we get into that, I'd rather milk the current point for what it's worth, I don't think we have yet arrived in diminishing returns country. Paradoctor (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T21:50:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-08T21:50:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-08T16:53:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

OK... but I think you are arguing just for the sake of argument... my point was that, even if we were to accept Paine's interpretation of these examples, I don't think they do constitute sufficient reason to believe there is a significant problem with the shortcut. Nor do I think that his finding a few more would be sufficient reason. I think that the benfits of being able to properly use the link far outweigh any potential for abuse. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-08T23:34:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-08T23:34:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-12T00:54:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:42:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-08T23:34:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well, I'm not arguing for the sake of argument as Paradoc might be. I'm arguing against a two-faced misnomer of a shortcut that should be TNT'd about as far away from Wikipedia as we can get it! First, you say you want examples. So I show you very real examples where editors asked NOT JUST for verification, but also for TRUTH OF THE CLAIM. Now, you imply that I wasted my time. You might be right, and I might not garner consensus for this, but there are other ways of getting rid of nasty things in Wikipedia that editors cling to as if they were married to them for fifty years. PROVEIT has to GO, it HAS TO. It is a longstanding shortcut that I've shown causes problems, so it has been causing these problems – edit wars, incivil heated arguments on Talk pages, confusion among novice editors and abuse by longstanding editors – for a longstanding time. It's about time to get the shortcut the heck outta Dodge!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T04:42:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:42:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-08T23:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:42:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

"just for the sake of argument": I'll admit to enjoying this particular exchange, but my heart is pure, my intentions are good, and I'm on the right side. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T04:42:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T05:32:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z"]}}-->

There is no "right side" or wrong side, Paradoc. There is only improvement of this grand and great encyclopedia, this information resource that has no equal. I have been in Blueboar's shoes before, and I have been in LeadSongDog's and Ward20's shoes before. The first argument I ever made on WP was just like this one, though. I argued to move the Shirley Temple page to "Shirley Temple Black". I felt among other things that Black has been even more notable as a government-service worker than she was as a child star. There were IIRC more than ten involved editors who promptly and effectively shut me down, though some excellent compromises/improvements were made. It wasn't really a consensus, though, until I read Black's own words, which indicated that she herself never had a problem with being identified with her sparkling, child-star image. Only then was the issue of renaming the Shirley Temple page brought to true "consensus". I am no stranger to being on the minority side of an issue. But when I know my proposition will improve this encyclopedia, then the majority will find that they have the proverbial "tiger by the tail".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T05:32:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T05:32:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-09T05:10:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T05:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

No problem, I like kitties. ^_^ Though I have to assure you, there is a wrong side. :-P Paradoctor (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T05:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:29:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z"]}}-->

As you wish, Paradoc, but if there is a wrong side, then it would have to be a bunch of good, experienced editors who, for whatever reason, blindly close their eyes to a solid gold case of shortcut abuse and misuse. WP:PROVEIT is nothing. It's just a shortcut with two possible meanings. It could be misused accidentally, it could be misused with malice aforethought, and it could be misunderstood by confused novice editors. Three strikes! The dern shortcut ought to be out.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T00:29:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:29:00.000Z-Paradoctor-2010-03-11T22:24:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paradoctor-2010-03-12T00:51:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:29:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Oh no! Not WP:SPOT, too! o_0 Paradoctor (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T00:51:00.000Z","author":"Paradoctor","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Paradoctor-2010-03-12T00:51:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:29:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Perhaps another way of looking at the question is to ask what extra value the WP:PROVEIT shortcut brings. How does it improve on the alternatives? Are there cases where it is simply a better choice, or could the alternatives serve as well, making it redundant? User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T14:56:00.000Z","author":"LeadSongDog","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-LeadSongDog-2010-03-09T14:56:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-12T00:54:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-09T15:22:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-09T14:56:00.000Z","c-Blueboar-2010-03-09T17:34:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-09T14:56:00.000Z"],"displayName":"User:LeadSongDog"}}-->

To Papyrus: Yes, there are cases where I think it is simply a better choice... I would agree it is a link that should be saved for rare occasions... but it is a very useful link to have when those rare occasions arise.

To Paine: shouting "it HAS TO go" and threatening a "tiger by the tail?"... my, you are getting worked up over this... perhaps it is time to take a wikibreak? Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T15:22:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-09T15:22:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-09T14:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T15:37:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-09T15:22:00.000Z"]}}-->

Emotional outburst noted and hopefully forgiven by all. You're right, BB, I think I'll go whoop some vandal butt for awhile. As Uncle Arnold said, "I'll be back."

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T15:37:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T15:37:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-09T15:22:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Speaking of tigers... you might want to read WP:TIGER... a very nice essay that seems to apply here. See you when you get back. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T17:34:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-09T17:34:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-09T14:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T18:55:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-09T17:34:00.000Z"]}}-->

Just briefly checking back, and yes, BB, that's a good one. I apologized for the ALLCAPS, because that was out of line. However, I cannot and will not apologize for the TBTT statement. I know that fulfilling this RfC proposition will improve Wikipedia. I am the metaphor personified.

For better or worse, that is me when I know I'm right. Admittedly, it sometimes gets me into trouble, but life is far too short to settle for mediocre, two-sided, Janus-faced misnomers like this shortcut.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-09T18:55:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-09T18:55:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-09T17:34:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• Oppose and remind editors that this issue is addressed elsewhere: "The shortcut is not the policy". Perhaps this warning should also be added to WP:SHORTCUT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T04:18:00.000Z","author":"WhatamIdoing","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-WhatamIdoing-2010-03-11T04:18:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-12T00:54:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T12:46:00.000Z-WhatamIdoing-2010-03-11T04:18:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you for your opinion, editor WhatamIdoing! From the link you provided, ". . . Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined by the community through consensus. Major changes to a policy or guideline page are discussed first on the talk page, especially with policies, . . ." This particular shortcut, as previously noted can have two meanings, thus making it a serious and confusing misnomer. I realize that "The shortcut is not the policy" covers shortcuts that do not necessarily mean what the pointed-to policy is meant to cover, but I sincerely believe that this shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, is not what that procedural policy was meant to cover. I am hard-pressed to accept that WP:POLICY#Adherence asks us to accept a two-sided, Janus-faced misnomer shortcut that has caused, and continues to cause confusion and misuse on Wikipedia discussion pages.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T12:46:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T12:46:00.000Z-WhatamIdoing-2010-03-11T04:18:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• Oppose - Geez, I was bringing some questionable language from WP:NPOV over here which is so poorly worded it allows all sorts of WP:OR to sneak in, and now people want to get rid of "prove it"? How much more questionable nonsense would sneak in? Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Misunderstanding_of_.22A_Simple_Formulation.22 here with relevant proposal to this page Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Earlier_version_and_proposal here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T16:15:00.000Z","author":"Carolmooredc","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Carolmooredc-2010-03-11T16:15:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-12T00:54:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Refs.: WP:PROVEIT – RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted – [9] & [10]

At present there are five solid opposing editors and one editor, myself, who still wants the WP:PROVEIT shortcut completely removed from Wikipedia, either by moving it to another name or by outright deletion. There are two editors who have suggested a compromise to remove the shortcut from the shortcut box, and to allow the shortcut Redirect to remain and be used sparingly. I still strongly believe that this shortcut must go. However in the spirit of seeking agreement/consensus, I would seriously consider a compromise if opposing editors would also be willing to do so.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T13:00:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T13:00:00.000Z-RfC_status","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T13:43:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T13:00:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Just to nit-pick, I count Six opposing editors... but even five to one seems to be a clear consensus against removing. As for the "hide it" suggestion... If there are times when it is appropriate to use the shortcut (and I think there are), then we should continue to list it. You have yet to convince me that there is a valid reason not to list it, and unless you can come up with a new argument I don't expect you will be able to convince me. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T13:43:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T13:43:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T13:00:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T13:59:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T13:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

(edit conflict). There are only five editors who are clearly opposed. The editor of which you speak is probably Paradoc, who has not indicated an opinion, although has argued for the most part in opposition of this RfC.

So Blueboar, in accord with what you say above, you appear to endorse the confusion and misuse of this shortcut. Why would you want the confusion, edit wars and incivil disputes caused by this shortcut to continue?

On a separate note, and to be completely straightforward, I have asked for help on this discussion page. I sincerely would like to keep this discussion informal as long as possible.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T13:59:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T13:59:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T13:43:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T14:25:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T13:59:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• PS. You have a majority, not a consensus. There is a difference.

Your argument is similar to saying that because some people drink and drive, we should do away with cars, and that if I am in favor of cars, I "endorse" drunk driving. I think that is a fundamentally flawed argument. I don't endorse drinking and driving... but I would strongly oppose banning cars. Similarly, I do not endorse confusion and misuse of the PROVEIT link, but I support appropriate use of this link... and that means that I stongly support keeping the link. Furthermore, I think you are seriously over stating how much confusion and misuse actually exists, and I think that what little confusion or misuse might exist can be dealt with in other ways... and are better dealt with in other ways. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T14:25:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T14:25:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T13:59:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T15:34:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T14:25:00.000Z"]}}-->

(edit conflict). Perhaps you don't consider 2 out of 14 (14.3%) a significant number of misuses? Or perhaps you find the sample size inadequate? If I go pull an AQL sample, then who knows what I might find? There might be less than 14% or there might be more than 14% editors who use the shortcut inappropriately. I am only closely familiar with one case, which is the case that brought me here in the first place, first to make a BOLD edit, and then to open discussion to attempt to get you involved editors to see just how badly used this shortcut can be. Since you and the other opposers (with the exception of Paradoc) were not involved in this heated discussion, then how can you possibly feel the powerful opposition I have to this shortcut? So I do understand your position, Blueboar, and the positions of the others, however I still firmly believe that this shortcut is a two-sided, Janus-faced misnomer that must be dealt with, someway, somehow.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T15:34:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T15:34:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T14:25:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

<backdent> You now have 6 opposing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T16:16:00.000Z","author":"Carolmooredc","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Carolmooredc-2010-03-11T16:16:00.000Z-RfC_status","replies":["c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T16:26:00.000Z-Carolmooredc-2010-03-11T16:16:00.000Z"]}}-->

What misuses? The links you provided were to experienced editors using it as a shortcut to a policy. You have yet to link to an editor using it to mean something else. Please, as you have no evidence and have convinced no-one, perhaps it is time to LETGO?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T16:26:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T16:26:00.000Z-Carolmooredc-2010-03-11T16:16:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jclemens-2010-03-11T16:31:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T16:26:00.000Z","c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:13:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T16:26:00.000Z"]}}-->

Called it ~4 days ago. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T16:31:00.000Z","author":"Jclemens","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jclemens-2010-03-11T16:31:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T16:26:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

JB, your refusal to "see" that those editors were calling for a claim to be proved/evidenced to be TRUE does not negate the fact that they were doing so. That is clear misuse of the shortcut, whether they were experienced or not. Then you have the example that sent me here to discuss the issue. I feel that it is highly unfair of you to call my evidence "no evidence", and to pressure me into submission. The shortcut is a two-faced misnomer that has no business on Wikipedia, and I will continue to believe so until you can provide at least as hard evidence in support of its continued misuse as I have provided to get rid of it.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T17:13:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:13:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T16:26:00.000Z","replies":["c-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:13:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• PS. When used as a call for truth, this shortcut is actually in violation of this policy!

Does anyone else see the irony of one editor asking (in the face of pointed questions) for something that he's unable to convince anyone else is necessary? Just curious. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z","author":"Jclemens","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:13:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:55:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z","c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:53:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z","c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T18:43:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

No irony here that I can see, JC.

• We have myself and two other editors who clearly see the need for improvement.
  • LeadSongDog
  • Ward20
  • Paine Ellsworth
    • comment... Um ... I don't see any comment by Mark20... so make that you and LeadSongDog. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T18:55:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:55:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:55:00.000Z"]}}-->
      • Apologies to Ward20 for my error, which has been corrected. Thank you, BB. for pointing this out.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:55:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T20:59:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z","c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T21:51:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z","c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:10:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->
        • Thanks for clearing that up... note that Ward20 did not "clearly see a need for improvement" all he said was that he understood your opposition. His suggestion was actually to keep PROVEIT as a link, and add SOURCEIT as another alternative (something that I would have no objection to.) Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T20:59:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T20:59:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
        • "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is?" That was Ward20's suggestion. First you threaten me, then when I have been straightforward about asking for help at MedCab, you sneak over and persecute me, and now you totally misconstrue another editor's statements. I think it's time for you to leave this debate. You egged me back into this when I really didn't want to come back yet. So what's next? You gonna make more threats? Oh, excuse me, you gonna warn me and advise me some more? Dern stuff can be contagious as heck!  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T21:51:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T21:51:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->
        • No, that isn't Ward's suggestion... read it again, in it's entirety: "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is? Over time editors may come to a consensus to use that shorcut, and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not and WP:PROVEIT will win out." (bolding mine for emphisis). Ward's suggestion isn't to replace PROVEIT with SOURCEIT... his/her suggestion is to 1) add SOURCEIT to the box in addition to PROVEIT, and 2) let time and usage determine which (if either) is preferred. I have no problem with this idea. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T22:10:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:10:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:28:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:19:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:10:00.000Z"]}}-->

(edit conflict). Hopefully, Ward20 will return and notice the words being put in his mouth. He did not write, "add SOURCEIT to the box in addition to PROVEIT". He did write, "What about adding WP:SOURCEIT to the policy shortcut box where WP:PROVEIT is?" So I see Ward20's improvement as replacing WP:PROVEIT in the shortcut box, while allowing the Redirect to remain intact. Then let the future take care of itself. Are you amenable to this improvement?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T22:19:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:19:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:10:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:35:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:19:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Ward also wrote: "...and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped, or maybe not.... I interpret "and at a future time WP:PROVEIT gets dropped" to mean "keep it for now". Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T22:35:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":13,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:35:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:19:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:42:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:35:00.000Z"]}}-->

Yes, that is the way I read it, too. When coupled with his first sentence, Ward20 suggested to replace WP:PROVEIT with WP:SOURCEIT in the shortcut box, and keep it (the WP:PROVEIT Redirect) for now. Are you amenable to this improvement?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T22:42:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":14,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:42:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T22:35:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T23:12:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:42:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Well, all I can say is that I interpret Ward's comment very differently than you do. I interpret it as having both PROVEIT and SOURCEIT, and time will tell which people use. So we will have to agree to disagree unless Ward comes by and clarifies. I would be amenable to having SOURCEIT in addition to PROVEIT, waiting a while to see if this addition changes behaviors, and if so then reopening the issue of removing PROVEIT... I am not amenable to removing PROVEIT at this point in time. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T23:12:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":16,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T23:12:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T22:42:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ward20-2010-03-11T23:41:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T23:12:00.000Z","c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T23:33:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T23:12:00.000Z"]}}-->

Sorry, I haven't been monitoring closely enough. My intent was to offer a compromise exactly as Blueboar describes above, having SOURCEIT and PROVEIT both in the box. It would allow editors to migrate away from PROVEIT, if they wish. It also allows editors to note SOURCEIT and PROVEIT are equivalent which indicates truth need not be proved. I am not advocating any particular wording one way or another, I just wanted to advance a possible compromise. Ward20 (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T23:41:00.000Z","author":"Ward20","type":"comment","level":17,"id":"c-Ward20-2010-03-11T23:41:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T23:12:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T23:53:00.000Z-Ward20-2010-03-11T23:41:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well then, Ward, I must have misunderstood you when you indicated to put SOURCEIT where PROVEIT was. Okay, so the only change you advocate is the addition of another shortcut. Why do you suppose WP:SOURCEIT, WP:BURDEN, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:BOP aren't enough? And what makes you think anything would change for the better if WP:PROVEIT remains in the shortcut box?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T23:53:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":18,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T23:53:00.000Z-Ward20-2010-03-11T23:41:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ward20-2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T23:53:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

I view it as a compromise to find out if there is a future consensus to use WP:SOURCEIT over PROVEIT. There seems to me to be a consensus not to eliminate PROVEIT right now. As I said previously I understand the reluctance to let go of long used terminology. I think a compromise similar to this would minimize any disruption over the long term. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day and some parts will take longer to optimize than others. Ward20 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z","author":"Ward20","type":"comment","level":19,"id":"c-Ward20-2010-03-12T00:18:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T23:53:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Agree to disagree.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T23:33:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":17,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T23:33:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T23:12:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

• We have one editor who appeared to be arguing for the sake of argument (productive nonetheless) and who never actually voiced an opinion either way.
  • Paradoctor
• We have six editors who oppose this resolution without really giving strong reasons to do so.
  • Jclemens
  • JohnBlackburne
  • Crum
  • Blueboar
  • WhatamIdoing
  • CarolMooreDC

I looked over the conversations that Carol pointed us to, and I tend to agree there with the majority, but mostly I see how people made the dissenting editor feel. I guarantee you, JC, that no matter how hard you and others might try to make me feel that I and my ideas don't belong here, it ain'ta gonna happen. We are init for the long haul.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T17:53:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:53:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:21:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:53:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Paine, I am going to be blunt here... The change you want isn't going to happen. Get used to it. Your continued pushing of this is now becoming a case of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Please drop it before someone gets pissed off enough to take action. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T18:21:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:21:00.000Z-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T17:53:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T20:54:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:21:00.000Z"]}}-->

BB, thank you for your bluntness, however please corral your threats! You fellas need to stick to the issues. You've been pushing me to stop since the very beginning. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. What we have here is an issue of incorrect use of a shortcut. We do not have any other issues except for the one you seem to be threatening. I have been civil up to now, but I will not stand for being threatened. I did not come here to piss anybody off, and that is not my intention now. So I will ask you just this once. Please stick to the issue at hand and stop trying to turn this conversation into a fiasco, won't you?

I am not threatening... I am giving warning and advice. You can take it or leave it as you wish. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T20:54:00.000Z","author":"Blueboar","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Blueboar-2010-03-11T20:54:00.000Z-Blueboar-2010-03-11T18:21:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Paine you are completely mischaracterising the debate. No-one is agreeing with your interpretation and unfounded assertions: you are in a minority of one. And those that oppose you do not need to give strong reasons: it is you trying to convince others that needs to provide persuasive arguments to change a long standing and widely used shortcut. This has already gone on too long, there was clear consensus before the RfC. Opening an RfC and posting elsewhere as if it were still open to question was quite unnecessary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T18:43:00.000Z","author":"JohnBlackburne","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T18:43:00.000Z-Jclemens-2010-03-11T17:37:00.000Z","replies":["c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:21:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T18:43:00.000Z"]}}-->

JB, I'm not mischaracterising anything, except perhaps the tone that this debate is taking upon itself. You people are real gems! I come here with the intention to improve this encyclopedia, and all I get is blind following of a misused shortcut just because of its longevity. Let's face it. That's pretty much all you have, isn't it? The shortcut's been around the block several times. It's my information that longevity of anything has never before stopped the improvement of Wikipedia. As well it shouldn't. So that is a very weak reason for doing nothing to improve this policy. You fellas seem to be getting a little out of hand, so I'm outty for awhile. When I return, it is hoped that civility will rule the day, and that editors will be sticking to the issue at hand and coming up with valid reasons to keep this shortcut. At present, there are no valid reasons to keep this shortcut, and I have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that improvement is necessary. Thank you for listening.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-11T20:21:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-11T20:21:00.000Z-JohnBlackburne-2010-03-11T18:43:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->

Well, LSD, since Ward clarified his position, it is now just you and me against the . . .— anyway, do you think it is useful to continue to attempt compromise? or are you willing to acquiesce to the status quo?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  00:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-03-12T00:46:00.000Z","author":"Paine Ellsworth","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Paine_Ellsworth-2010-03-12T00:46:00.000Z-LeadSongDog-2010-03-11T20:45:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Ellsworth's"}}-->