I think we'll agree to disagree, since this is literally playing on words. To me "reinforcement" alludes to a reinforcement of behaviour, not likelihood of act

I think we'll agree to disagree, since this is literally playing on words. To me "reinforcement" alludes to a reinforcement of behaviour, not likelihood of action vs inaction. So it's a case for increasing the specificity of the word, not decreasing it. If every time you try to open the door you get an electric shock, this is a "negative/punishing" stimulus that reinforces a particular behaviour of avoiding doors. Similarly if you used to get a treat every time you opened the door which then reinforced a door-opening behaviour, and then you suddenly stop giving treats, then this is the removal of a "positive/rewarding" stimulus, which 'weakens' the particular, previously reinforced behaviour of opening doors. At the very least we should be talking about 'reinforcement vs weakening', 'positive/rewarding stimuli vs negative/punishing stimuli', and 'application vs removal of stimulus'. So, linguistically speaking, using the term "negative reinforcement" to mean "weakening by removal of a positive stimulus" rather than "reinforcement via application of a negative stimulus" is simply misleading, and bad choice of terminology.