Talk:Female genital mutilation in the United States

Untitled

I will try to improve the article, which is tagged for multiple issues.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AACB (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made several changes, I think the article is now in an acceptable state, so I removed the tag.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AACB (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cox Marguerite. Peer reviewers: Arcendeight, Owlettes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

It would be helpful to engage with the current debate on recognizing a cultural defense to the crime of female genital mutilation in the United States in the legislative framework or prosecution section. LaurenAnneCapo (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaurenAnneCapo, please feel free to add that to the article, and if you have any interest in working on it in general, that would be wonderful. It badly needs expansion and updating. The Centers for Disease Control published estimates this year of people at risk in the United States, based on 2012 figures. [1] SarahSV ^(talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Female genital mutilation in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I think it may become even more informative if you begin to further explain how female genital mutilation is such a horrible thing in the United States, how did female genital mutilation even make its way to the U.S, things like that. Add just enough background information so that people are better able to understand why this is a huge issue.

Gstew42 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Gillian Stewart[reply]

Hello Wikipedians, I am considering adding more information to this article to help with it's content. I am a student at Rice University. I would love to hear any feedback. Thanks! Cox Marguerite (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Cox Marguerite (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit proposal

Edit Proposal - Female genital mutilation in the United States

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I plan on editing the page “Female genital mutilation in the United States”. I will be correcting grammatical errors throughout the article, and adding additional information. I will be adding to the Introduction so that it is more substantial. Once the Introduction is more substantial, I will be removing the Overview section. I will be adding more information about the history of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the United States. I will be adding to the Prevalence section, and adding a substantial amount of data from the major studies conducted. I will describe the methods used to collect this data, as well as the difficulties encountered by those performing the studies. Lastly, I will be adding a section about the controversy surrounding the American Academy of Pediatricians’ discussion of the possibility of “genital nicking” as an option to avoid more drastic measures.

Sources

Kmietowkz, Zosia. "UK Colleges Criticise US Advice on Female Genital Mutilation." BMJ: British Medical Journal 340, no. 7756 (2010): 1103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40702226.

This source explains the controversy of the American Academy of Pediatricians.

Jones, W K., J Smith, B Kieke and L Wilcox. "Female genital mutilation." Female circumcision. Who is at risk in the U.S.? Public Health Reports 112 (1997): 377.

This source has information about the statistics collected about the number of women and girls at risk in America.

Goldberg, Howard, Paul Stupp, Ekwutosi Okoroh, Ghenet Besera, David Goodman, and Isabella Danel. "Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and Girls at Risk, 2012."

This article also has information about the statistics and the methods used to gather them.

"Female Genital Mutilation Outlawed In United States." BMJ: British Medical Journal 313, no. 7065 (1996): 1103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29733347.

This article, from 1996, provides a perspective into the initial outlaw of FGM/C in the United States. Cox Marguerite (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cox Marguerite, that sounds like a good idea. In case it helps, here are some other sources about the American Academy of Pediatricians' statement (later withdrawn):

"Female Genital Mutilation", Pediatrics, 102(1), 1 July 1998, 153–156. PMID 9651425

Withdrawn policy: "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors", Pediatrics, 25(5), 1 May 2010, 1088–1093. PMID 20530070 doi:10.1542/peds.2010-0187

Pam Belluck, "Group Backs Ritual 'Nick' as Female Circumcision Option", The New York Times, 6 May 2010.

SarahSV ^(talk) 01:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Edits

Hi Cox Marguerite; Good job on expanding this article, particularly the History and Prevalence sections. I think your expansion of the History section was particularly needed. Moving forward, I would recommend expanding the lead and final sections, specifically the Legislative Framework and Overview ones. I would also recommend varying your sources a bit more in the History section in order to preempt conflict and link to some more articles. Best of luck moving forward! Arcendeight (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

The article clearly articulates what FGM is. I think the history and prevalence sections are well developed. It is concise and to the point. There’s no unnecessary information present in the article. I think you have done a substantial amount of research which is awesome. You have so many citations to back up all your claims from a variety of sources. The article is really to understand.

The lead is only two sentences. So I think information summarizing some of your other sections in the article would be helpful to give an overview of what your article is going to include. Additionally, I’m not sure what purpose the overview section serves in regards to the article as a whole since it doesn’t really mention much about FGM in the U.S. You could potentially merge the overview section with the lead. I would also add more to the legislative framework section. You could compare and contrast laws with the United States versus other countries. And you couldn’t mention a bit about what cultural implications are present in certain societies that would not legislate against FGM. What is their role in the law?

Overall, I think making the first sentence of the article stronger and more informative is important. Also, I think that you could add more to the legislative framework section. Add more maps about the U.S. and FGM if there are any? And consider merging the overview with the lead and including more U.S. specific information in the lead/ overview. Add more links if to some of the conditions FGM was supposed to cure, if there any? I think it’s a good start!

Dmazero (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Dmazero[reply]

Comments on Revision

Cox Marguerite: Your contributions to the Prevalence and History section of this article are excellent! They’re very well written, well sourced, and give sufficient context to the issue without being too heavy. I would recommend editing the lead to give more information and more accurately reflect the information given in the article, and adding more to the other sections as well. Your contributions are great, keep up the good work! --Owlettes (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separate out the "at risk of" numbers from the prevalence numbers

It needs

Number of women and girls already had FGM done
Number of women and girls having FGM done before immigrating to the USA
Number of women and girls at risk of a possible FGM being done

It's impossible to tell if women and girls with FGM in the USA got it while in another country or if it was done, in violation of federal law, in the USA.

The way it is written to include all of the "at risk of" numbers, FGM done in another country, FGM done in the USA is in need of a clean up.

For context, Wikipidia would exclude a citation having a statement "160 million women have been sexually harassed or are at risk of being sexually harassed" in the USA as it would include all of the women in the country. 107.197.56.204 (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]