Jakew the photo shows a protest against routine infant circumcision It appears in a subsection which includes the following Opponents of circumcision question the ethical validity of removing healthy functioning genital tissue from a minor arguing that infant circumcision infringes upon individual autonomy and represents a human rights violation The image depicts an opponent s of circumcision the placards reference the ethical validity of removing healthy functioning tissue from a minor through the words and phrases Foreskin is not a birth defect Whose body Whose rights and through the use of the images of infants Furthermore the phrase Whose rights references human rights violation and the phrase Whose body references individual autonomy The image is very relevant to the part of the section in which it appears bearing in mind that there is no requirement to find images which are pictorial representations of all aspects of the article or section to which they relate The picture is illustrative and appropriate in the context in which it appears because it adds more information to this supposedly encyclopaedic article by showing the reader that some people are prepared to demonstrate against circumcision You may not like it but this is an aspect of circumcision opposition It s unfortunate that we don t have a similar picture of a pro circumcision rally if such a thing existed or similar but that s no excuse for censorship I suggest that neutrality isn t about finding a matching pro for every con or vice versa and then exluding any unmatched pros and cons left over it s about not suppressing any of the pros and cons which we take a dislike to Instead of blocking attempts to add additional relevant information to the article perhaps you could search for an image of activities related to one of those WHO inspired anti HIV infection circumcision programmes you ve referred to in previous discussions and include that in the article for example