oldfart
Older than dirt
They'd have to prove it. Link it. Not just "Some people say/some people are saying" their way through a claim.
Also, they shouldn't be able to turn a blind eye to questions they don't want to hear, or facts they don't want to acknowledge. Because that's just as bad, no matter how polite it may appear.
Umm...just because someone can provide a link doesn't mean it's a fact. Nor does refusing a question equate to turning a blind eye...usually when someone asks a question it is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I would much rather no have links to some of the nonsense sources a lot of posters here use as evidence of fact.
Like I said, most people cannot discern fact from opinion
Demanding that people provide links and "proof" gets ridiculous around here. If it's in all standard histories or almanacs or commonly accessed statistical sources, I think that it doesn't need to be sourced.
Too often posters get harassed to provide documentation for something everyone should be able to check for themselves. When they reply with the documentation, the questioner ignores the response and moves on. If you are too lazy to look up U-6 at BLS or know that Wounded Knee was in 1890, you should shut up and take other's word for it. Just because someone is familiar with the literature does not mean they have to look up citations for every person who wishes to display their ignorance.
Besides, at least 98% of these challenges are not serious; if they could fact check they would tell you the objection, not just demand "proof".
We are kidding ourselves if we think there are very many robust fact-based discussions here. A thread is in the minority if you get two people who can actually look up relevant facts posting in the same day. And as noted in the OP, the discussion usually evaporates as soon as the trolls begin to swarm.