This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
this article has many problems. the actual description of the content is thin and extremely incomplete. even worse, the critique lacks any real argument. in fact it is just a polemic quote. i would either remove it or elaborate on the actual position of the reviewer. also, the response is much too long and has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. the advantages and disadvantages of ANT should be discussed in the actual article. a reference to the controversies ("science wars" and issues of the social construction of society) should be enough. no need for ideological squabble here.
Since when does Wikipedia endorse original criticism on article pages?
The section "response to criticism" both seems like original research (completely no citations, written in a very partial style) and is written in a way that clearly violates NPOV, as in "illustrates how Amsterdamska crucially failed to understand Latour" (this is a clearly evaluative remark). Ilintar (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)