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.)
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.
"""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. :(
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.
What you're doing here is cherry picking a very reasonable policy that Wikipedia has and generalizing it far past its actual application.
What you're saying is that WP frowns on journal articles because they are "primary sources".
What WP actually says is that you can't go take the results of journal articles and use them to synthesize conclusions that the author didn't actually make inside a Wikipedia article. In other words, you cannot use WP articles to ratify new science.
I feel like if there's one place on the Internet that should appreciate a policy forbidding unfounded extrapolation from journal articles, it should be HN, which routinely hosts debates that pick apart the media's broken analysis of scientific articles.