Anthere wrote:

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.

If they speak English well enough to be able to effectively use the English Wikipedia, then they are part of the English Wikipedia's audience. And we should always write to our audience within the bounds of NPOV. However, the primary audience of the English Wikipedia should still be native speakers.

We do not build a project with a special pov depending on languages and cultures supposed to be associated to specific country.

Of course not! :) That is why I said 'within the bounds of NPOV'. It is more of a focus issue and it is about writting for your audience. That is why Wikibooks, for example, can use NPOV without having to fill textbooks (a specialized works of reference) with largely irrelevant side-topics.

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

Focus and neutrality are two different things. Different cultures will have different wants and needs from a work of reference. If a large segment of your readership is interested in a certain aspect of a subject, then that aspect should have higher prominence in the article that deals with that subject.

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 ?

We have already gone over this above where I said go ahead and use the wording 'intact'. Same goes here.

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.

This proves my point about focus; Since we are a group of volunteers, I do not find it at all surprising that the topic of female circumcision is in this state in the English Wikipedia. It simply isn't on the minds of as many English speakers as I imagine it is on the minds of French speakers (many of whom, as you note, are from parts of Africa where this practice is common).

So I would expect there to naturally be more of a need to elevate the issue of female circumcision to a higher level in the French Wikipedia as there is in the English one. Maybe even to a level where it would make sense to have a photo of the genitals of a circumsized female next to a photo the genitals of an intact female in an article that deals with female genitalia in general.

If a large percentage of your readers would expect such a thing, then it should be there. That is focus and writing to your readership.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)