Re circumcision: it looks to me as if the current article has pictures of both a circumcized and an uncircumsized penis, so what's the problem?

Re pictures of genitalia. As a reference point, the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, the index word "penis" references the article "Reproductive system." This article contains a number of detailed line drawings (engravings?), mostly from Cunningham's Textbook of Anatomy. None of them are, however, what I'd call a picture of a genital. The male section shows a transverse section of a "young Prostate" (eeewwwww); a transverse section of a testis and epididymus (eeeewwww); a sagital median section of bladder prostate, and rectum, and a three-dimensional-looking detailed view that looks to me like a dissected cadaver (EEEEEwwwwww), showing a "view of the base of the bladder, prostate, seminal vesicles, and vasa deferentia." The female section offers a cadaverous view of the uterus and broad ligament, and a diagram of the vaginal cavity, cervix, and uterus.

In other words, I infer that their policy is "an encyclopedia should have pictures," and also that their policy with respect to genitalia "cadavers and transverse sections only, and no erectile tissue at all."

Let me say as clearly as I can that I present that just as a data point. I am not, repeat NOT suggesting that this is the appropriate policy for Wikipedia!