Look, a lenghty exchange of opinions can be a nice thing, but since you two have now discussed the rough equivalent of 3-4 pages, this discussion is obviously stalled. Let me try to sum up what I think about this topic:
Please be aware that WP:ATT (like any other WP policy) isn’t written in stone, and SaltyBoatr's extremely literal interpretation of one sentence of this policy is most likely not what it was meant to say.
every article published in Foreign Affairs is reviewed by other scientists, which is much more than you could say for any “reliable” newspaper or just about every university publication. That should be enough to make sure WP:ATT isn’t a good reason to ban them.
I have to agree with Ultramarine: if you use your interpretation of WP:ATT consequently, there’s only a handful of WP-articles that would survive the necessary mass-deletion of references. (What’s more, I think it would be some pretty bad ones, those that rely entirely on newspaper articles)
Finally: There really is no good reason why articles that I could use in every Political Science paper and any scientific article shouldn’t be enough for Wikipedia. -