3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 806:
Line 806: − + − ==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. − − What relevance does mentioning that Wales is an atheist have with Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not an atheist site, so if you wanted to avoid the bias you so strongly accuse Wikipedia of having, why even mention atheism in the opening statement of the article? Surely it may be appropriate to discuss atheism and Wales in his article, but not in the article on Wikipedia. − − Come on guys, get your act together.
→Sexual obsession
==Sexual obsession==
==Sexual obsession==
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]]