Daniel Mayer a écrit: Yes. Which is why I also suggested that only the regular picture be kept at the top, with the mention "penis". And that circoncized one be moved at the bottom (there is a small paragraph introducing the topic, where it would relevant possibly). Then, I realised there were NO pictures of circoncized penis in the circonsision article. So I thought that the pictures were more relevant there, and that moving both allowed comparison. On the penis article, there is a diagram which I think is sufficiently informative. I was considering moving the semi erected picture as well to the erection article (as this article has no picture at all either), then Brion stopped the writing of the database....and... I respectfully disagree that the english wikipedia is first and beforemost for the english speaking world. Unless you agree to include most Europe for example, as most adults now speak a reasonable amount of english. We do not build a project with a special pov depending on languages and cultures supposed to be associated to specific country. An article on the english wikipedia is supposed to be neutral for american readers, but supposed to be neutral for french readers as well. If not (actually, it is not), we can't claim our goal is to be neutral. Good. The picture is not very good unfortunately. It would be best as Erik says, that we have more pictures of different states. You can't claim seriously circunsision is being ignored in that article Mav. It is mentionned in the anatomy part, AND there is a special paragraph as well AND there is also a link at the bottom. It is mentionned quite proeminently and clearly. I would like that minority views are always expressed as clearly. ------ This is not just for Mav. I went to the article about clitoris for a tiny comparison, as a huge number of african girls are circonsized as well (some of them being french, as this is still practiced in secret among african immigrants). It is also practiced in other countries; A minority, just like masculine circoncized, but a relevant number anyway. There are no pictures of circonsision in the article. And no picture in particular showing a natural clitoris with a label saying "un-circoncized clitoris". What would you feel when seeing the pict of a perfectly classical (for us) clitoris, with the label being not "clitoris" but being "uncirconcized clitoris" ? Would it feel quite right ? Would it ? The topic of female circonsision is only very shortly mentionned in two lines at the bottom of the article. And that's it. Not mentionned in the anatomy. Not additional link. Now, I wonder what an african reading these two articles, one proeminently talking about a practice he does not really know about, and another hardly mentionning what is cultural norm to him, would think.