|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Not a "deconstructionist"
I removed the word "deconstructionist" from the line "her deconstructionist view of science," simply because Haraway is no such thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
"As a postmodern feminist, she argues against essentialism, which she defines as "any theory that claims to identify a universal, transhistorical, necessary cause or constitution of gender identity or patriarchy" ("Feminist Epistemology")." What's the exact source, i.e. page number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Her definition of 'essentialism' is nowhere near the usual one. "[E]ssentialism is the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must possess." -- Wikipedia. This is typical. What Ms. Haraway does in her writings is redefine concepts "metaphorically" and then show how they are wrong -- she sets up a straw man and burns it. Even though her work is self-contradictory and full of slipshod thought and emotionalism, she is immune to criticism because people are afraid to be thought stupid for not understanding what she says, when in fact what she says often doesn't make any sense. What is desperately needed in this article is a section on criticism of her work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Here are a few sources that could help clarify her theoretical perspective, particularly her thoughts on cyborgs which needs to be addressed in better detail on this page:
Butler, Judith, and Joan W. Scott. Feminists Theorize the Political. New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.
Haraway, Donna J. The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Haraway, Donna J. Modest₋witness@second₋millennium.femaleman₋meets₋oncomouse: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.
Haraway, Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge, 1991. Print.
Latimer, Heather. "Reproductive Technologies, Fetal Icons, and Genetic Freaks: Shelley Jackson’s Patchwork Girl and the Limits and Possibilities of Donna Haraway’s Cyborg." Modern Fiction Studies 57.2 (2011): 318-335. Print.
Prins, Baukje. "The Ethics of Hybrid Subjects: Feminist Constructivism According to Donna Haraway." Science, Technology, & Human Values 20.3 (1995): 352-367. Print.
Lead section and Early life
In order to make the article fit better with the standard form of biographical Wikipedia entries and to highlight the influences of her education and upbringing on her later work, I am removing the section regarding her education and placing a refashioned version in a section titled Early Life. I am largely rewriting the paragraph regarding her education because it lacked any citations in its previous form and contained inaccuracies. I think it is important to have a bit more accurate information about her formative years. She is clearly important enough to justify an in depth discussion of her various works and it would be useful to see what influenced her and where she may have gotten some of those ideas.
As an aside I am currently enrolled in a Master’s of Information class that is participating in Wikiproject Wikipedia and Wikipedia Ambassador program encouraging graduate student participation in contributing to Wikipedia. This is my first time editing an article so if I make any rookie mistakes please let me know.
I am making some changes that I hope will make it easier to find information within this article. I am streamlining the lead section by removing publication information that is difficult to read in its current form and is duplicated in the "Publications" section. I am also bringing the "Publications" section forward to make that information more prominent and the page more useful to users. As well, I am changing the misleading "Haraway's books" heading to a more accurate heading. I have also added ISBN information to make the original works easier to access.
The citations are not in standard Wikipedia format. Further, the article is not written from a neutral point of view. It leaves me wondering whether Donna herself wrote this hagiography, or had one of her students write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this really necessary for this Author? A Majority of what's written is just on her writing style I think other articles cover this, as it's a common criticism against Post-Modern Writers I think are covered elsewhere (Such as the Sokal Affair) I'd like to suggest something more specific to her ideas if a section is necessary. It is mentioned she has a vague methodology but there is few concrete examples given. I have not read any of her work other than what's in the article so I can't give any further suggestions 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree in a way. I arrived at this page seeing Cyborg Feminism in the "See Also" section of the article Reproduction and pregnancy in speculative fiction. Looking at the Cyborg Feminism section on the Donna Haraway article, I see nothing there that is actually meaningful or value-added about cyborg feminism. I still have no idea what cyborg feminism actually is and why it should have been at the "See Also" section.
Generally, in an article on "X", any encyclopedia needs to be able to give at least a summary answer to the question "What is 'X'"? I learned about the Five W's in public elementary school: who, what, where, when, why, how. Those are the questions that need to be asked and answered. An encyclopedia has to have more informational heft than a PowerPoint presentation - and this article doesn't fail in that way since it does give particulars - but it also has to at least be as efficient as an executive summary. Vincent Ree (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)