Talk:Science in Action (book)

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

lack of content, bad discussion

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.

best, alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.255.192 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 27 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– It's unclear whether the primary topic for the term "Science in Action" is the book (the current subject at Science in Action) or Science in Action (radio programme) per historical significance and page view count. Steel1943 (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

to do: expand criticism section to a reception section.

i'm sure we can find commentary about this book to give us more of a sense of how this book has been received, both situating it in comparison to latour's other work, as well as within the broader fields of philosophy of science. Handpigdad (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

moreover, for a book that has been cited extensively, surely the number and scope of the citations on this article could be expanded. Handpigdad (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]