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