Re: editing Deflem's comments 

 [sorry, I initially did not see how to make additions to the discussion, and I started editing in the page  I will make my comments below) 

 1) 

 about "Most typically, public sociologists are leftist, sociological radicals of a predominantly Marxist variety. 

 Response by Deflem: The leftist nature of public sociology refers to the Burawoy school of public sociology. Burawoy has written about this in at least two of his papers, the one appearing in from the Left and the one in Critical Sociology, where he refers to 'democratic socialism' and 'sociological marxism' as public sociology. True, not all public sociologists are necessarily marxist (also, not all marxists are not public sociologists), but clearly it is the Burawoy school that has led to the popularity of public sociology today. Incidentally, the term was orginally coined by Herbert Gans in a different meaning. I will put that in the entry.  

 2) 

 about "Sociologists of the world unite for a renascent civil society – a vibrant, participatory, global counter-hegemony!"... I do not believe that this adds to our understanding of the scope of public sociology. 

 Response by Deflem: This is a quote from Burawoy that clearly shows his marxism (the last line of the quote).  

 3) 

 Alsoaren't there other critics of public sociology out there? If so, wouldn't it strengthen the criticism section to include them alongside Deflem? 

 Response by Deflem: Yes, there are quite a number of critics of public sociology, judging from the support I get. But few are as vocal as me, I suppose, and many agree with much or most of what I have written. Among the other critics, one might add James Moody, who has a relevant powerpoint online. I will add that to the entry if you wish. 

 The rest is OK. All in all, the entry is reasonably well balanced, not entirely what I wished for, but probably all I can expect.