Alex-
No one is talking about advocacy here. If you want
to
advocate either way, then join one of the pro or anti
circumcision groups. If you want to be objective then
don't suggest that an article about genitals should feature
genitals that have been altered by a medical procedure.
This medical procedure is also a wide-spread cultural phenomenon.
Having a picture of an intact and a circumcised penis in an article about
the human penis does not mean that you take circumcision for granted. In
fact the article links to the one about [[circumcision]] three times, and
describes the procedure and its cultural background briefly.
Our job as an encyclopedia is to inform. And one thing people might ask
themselves when they read the article [[penis]] is: Why does my penis not
look like the one in the illustration/photo? As a matter of fact, studies
have shown that many circ'd men don't even know the difference, and don't
know -whether- they are circumcised! This should not be surprising as many
parents expect "the media" to do the job of sex education.
Of course the article should not solve the problem by showing no penis at
all. It should probably show a whole multitude of penises to illustrate
common differences in length (erect/flaccid), thickness, keratinization/
moisture, foreskin length, foreskin retractability, circumcision status
etc.
To be culturally and socially neutral requires that
one be sensitive
and non-judgemental to all perspectives, otherwise NPOV is
just another way to create propaganda that subtly controls by
using sophisticated references that are hidden while appearing
to be "objective" (whatever that means).
Well, I'm afraid that *omitting* the photo might cause this precise
problem, only that it would push things into the opposite direction. I
would prefer a solution where the image is put into context. Factual
completeness is better than political correctness.
Regards,
Erik