Changes

Is there a way to source and point out Wikipedia's obsession with sexual trivia and sexual phraseology without sullying this reference?  One of the mildest of such articles is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_tail Whale Tail]. My point is that how can any reference take itself seriously when it has entire articles devoted to peeking at female underwear which include links to more articles on topics such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage Butt Cleavage].  

Is there a way to source and point out Wikipedia's obsession with sexual trivia and sexual phraseology without sullying this reference?  One of the mildest of such articles is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_tail Whale Tail]. My point is that how can any reference take itself seriously when it has entire articles devoted to peeking at female underwear which include links to more articles on topics such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage Butt Cleavage].  

I apologize if this shocks or offends. I'd just like to point out how juvenile and base Wikipedia is. It also puts into perspective Wikipedia's wild claim on the number of articles it has.  [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

==Atheism==I apologize if this shocks or offends. I'd just like to point out how juvenile and base Wikipedia is. It also puts into perspective Wikipedia's wild claim on the number of articles it has.  [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

Since the last question on this matter seems to have bee ignored, I'll raise it once again.

Since the last question on this matter seems to have bee ignored, I'll raise it once again.