“So you can’t offer anything specific as to why you find these journals unworthy of your trust? Just as I thought.”
Actually, I said it would depend on the journal.
“You suggested earlier that you had the knowledge and experience that qualified you to judge the references offered by Wikipedia as insufficient. You don’t. That....”
To be specific, I did not suggest or even elude to such a thing. You’re welcome to revisit my previous comments. Now, it would appear you’d LIKE to believe your assertions are correct, but they amount to smoking mirrors and slight of hand tricks.
“...call people names like...”
Pot, meet kettle.
“How long does one need...”
Depends on the number of factors.
Actually, you didn't. Here's what you said in post #79 The references are not sources I would place much trust in.
You never explained why they weren't worthy of your trust. Now you're backtracking and saying it depends on the journal. Ok, I gave you four references in post #92. Which of those four are untrustworthy and why? Try and be specific.
By saying The references are not sources I would place much trust in, when responding to the Wikipedia references I offered in post #27, you more than suggest that you are somehow qualified to judge whether or not those sources are legitimate and present sound scientific evidence. Why else would you have commented by saying you wouldn't place much trust in them?
Either you can comment on the specifics of those sources, which you appear to be familiar with, or you can't. If the former, please respond to my question. If not, why not just admit that you're unqualified to be commenting on the veracity of my sources and move on?
In the future you may want to consider the possibility that a noob might possess more knowledge than you on a particular subject and shouldn't be ridiculed for having such knowledge.