(edit:) Why do you keep ignoring the arguments about the actual topic? Please respond to my first two paragraphs. This entire thing about verifiable sources is an off-topic argument that I'm only going down as an aside because you forced the issue by ignoring the notability problem.
You do realize that I quoted Wikipedia's guidelines, right? That those links I added were not some kind of lie: they were direct references to validate my argument.
Wikipedia seriously goes so far as to state that "mainstream newspapers" are an example of "the most reliable sources", in addition to all of the stuff I already pasted from their guidelines about journal papers.
(OK, I have 2% battery, and I can't find the reference for this, so I'm going to have to temporarily cede this argument. Grrr. I had that bit on newspapers as direct quotes in an argument from a couple months ago on this same topic, though. :( It certainly explains common practice, which "you are allowed to cite primary journal articles without backing them up from secondary sources" does not, in addition to bring a contradiction of the various guidelines.)
I cited downthread chapter and verse from WP:V explicitly stating that journal articles were good sources. In the comment you're replying to, I cited the specific policies I was referring to; I didn't provide hyperlinks because you had already hyperlinked to them. Please don't pretend that I'm making a point that's more controversial than it actually is.
It is simply not true that WP disallows citations to the academic cryptologic literature. The opposite is true.
Again, you've confused the actual policy, which says that you can't take a journal article, infer from it conclusions the author didn't make, and then draw those conclusions without any other support in the body of a WP article. The policy does not say that journal articles aren't sources.
(edit on previous comment. I am on my iPhone right now) Why do you keep ignoring the arguments about the actual topic? Please respond to my first two paragraphs (of the grandparent comment). This entire thing about verifiable sources is an off-topic argument that I'm only going down as an aside because you forced the issue by ignoring the notability problem.
"""None of the content in question is "wrong": we are only discussing things with "inappropriate weight". Are you saying that the game Space Empire Elite (the article that Jason Scott is angry about today) did not exist? Was there something else on the article that you believe was "wrong"? We are explicitly discussing "notability" here.
(Sadly, I can't even look at the article, for the reason I already complained about: when Wikipedia decides to delete something, it is totally removed from the website in a way such that you cannot use edit history to get it back, making arguments about it impossible post-facto. I wish I could make a real judgement for myself.)"""
Everything after those two paragraphs was "ok, of you insist on making a confusing non sequitur about Britannica based on that one rhetorical sentence from Nate's argument, I guess I can play along and argue", but is sadly the only thing you insist on arguing about, ignoring th deletionism issue. :(
You've quietly edited your previous comments to avoid having them rebutted by my comments, so I'm done. I'm mystified by why you'd feel the need to do that, by the way.
Actually, I explicily "ceded" them, as I can't appropriately source them on an iPhone (and we are now arguing on that path entirely based on who has better quotes), and I considered them a waste of time anyway, as my first contention on that argument thread was that you were off-topic.
That means you won, congratulations: it does not mean I don't want them rebutted, as if so I wouldn't explicitly cede; the implication there would be I don't want to lose, and yet here I am, saying you must be right, as I can't back my arguments up anymore. You won: don't be angry you won.
However, you simply ignored all of the main deletionist-related arguments in your quest to defeat the one unrelated thing you felt you could argue against (the verifiability of crypto papers on Wikipedia). "I'm mystified by why you feel the need to do that, by the way."
You first ignored Nate's argument, concentrating on the rhetorical ending note; you side-stepped my calling you out on that (so you could argue more about verifiability), and then you ignored my attempt to reconnect to the mainline argument... you are pretty much just trolling, and I fell for it :(.
(added:) Wait, define "quietly edited"? I didn't remove anything from them (normally for typos and grammar). I often redraft what I say during the couple minutes after I post it, but I don't alter the argument. The only edits I made to that post were 1) to remove a sentence "please argue your point better" which wasn't even in my original submission (and when I looked at it, I decided it was needlessly insulting; it was there maybe 30 seconds; I shouldn't have said it, and I apologize), 2) to add the paragraph at the top, which I explicitly said was an "edit", as I felt it not worth a second reply; and 3) to remove a hyperlink I had originally used as the reference for the thing on newspapers in a panic at 3% battery life based on a Google hit that was wrong, replacing it with me explicitly ceding the argument when I couldn't find the right hyperlink, which only puts you at an advantage.
You do realize that I quoted Wikipedia's guidelines, right? That those links I added were not some kind of lie: they were direct references to validate my argument.
Wikipedia seriously goes so far as to state that "mainstream newspapers" are an example of "the most reliable sources", in addition to all of the stuff I already pasted from their guidelines about journal papers.
(OK, I have 2% battery, and I can't find the reference for this, so I'm going to have to temporarily cede this argument. Grrr. I had that bit on newspapers as direct quotes in an argument from a couple months ago on this same topic, though. :( It certainly explains common practice, which "you are allowed to cite primary journal articles without backing them up from secondary sources" does not, in addition to bring a contradiction of the various guidelines.)