Talk:The Sociological Imagination

Latest comment: 6 years ago by 88.119.194.62 in topic Confusing

Confusing edit

anyone else find this article a bit confusing? can we fix this? 142.177.175.208 (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article sociological imagination presents Mill's main thesis and points; this article seems to be more of a critical book review, (a "sociological book review", about the book itself!), rather than about what it says. That is, this article is kind-of "meta" - its more about why Mills wrote what he did, rather than being about what he said. 88.119.194.62 (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The section called “grand theory” (lol) doesn't even touch on the title of the book, sociological imagination.

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Sociological Imagination. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply