Talk:C. Wright Mills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death[edit]

Why no info about how/when he died. Yes, it says 1962 several times, but what was the cause? He was only about 46. 98.221.141.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

That timeline needs to be taken down for three reasons; it's egregiously biased, factually incorrect (the women's rights movement does not begin and end at the same time as the civil rights movement), and doesn't cite any sources for the multitude of 'Empire vs. ToWhomItMayConcern' events, specifically the many engagments against China leading up to and during WWII. (Kyle V) 129.116.12.7 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really bizarre. I especially like the 'timeline' which puts C. Wright Mills' books in the 'context' of a risibly crude and one-sided view of the US's role in international relations. It's quite high-school... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.148.166 (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I like to be cheesy :) I think the background is relevant, especially with his work on power elite. Oh, and, it's better to fix it rather than to remove it :) Mehmetaergun (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This article is severely craptastic. Um, I wish I could help, but I don't know where to start. --Defenestrate 03:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are serious flaws in this entry. First, the introduction and the section marked 'Outlook' are too hagiographics; moreover, the 'Outlook' section is filled with typographical and grammatical errors, as well as significant flaws in composition and orderliness. On the other hand, the entry is quite good in listing Mills's works and describing their theses. As a whole, however, this entry is greatly biased and needs severe cleaning-up.

I think his ideas are valuable because they introduced a whole new way of thinking in sociology.

I think it'd be nice to get a picture of him in here guy... --Cyberman 21:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- While I think it is nice that someone is putting Mills' ideas to use on their personal website(asadi.org) and in their books, I think inline hyperlinks to that website and its derivative works do not aid or enhance the content of this article, and are distracting. I feel there is a personal motive to this inclusion, which is unencyclopedic.

-- Wow. This article is terrible. Is there some kind of cult that worships this guy or something? I feel like any attempt to neutralize the article's POV as it stands now will result in leaving nothing but the man's name and a list of works. User:Transentient 12 July 2006

".....had totally failed to explain phenomenon that were now concentrated in the international arena".


Had totally failed to understand that "phenomenon" is not a plural.


Why is there no way to correct the introductory part of this entry?

Mills is very Important Sociologist!Look at the US goverment is crowded with Armdealers like Cheney,Military people like Colin Powell and Oil traders like "Condi" Rice.But the Articel is DULL!Academish dull! And C.Wright Mills was never dull,or Academish dull!He was a good writer with good sence of humor!Look at the Swedish article written by sociologist Jan Milch.He is bright and good writer like C.W Mills! Herbert Wells

The section on the power elite and the sociological imagination was written by me, m.asadi, directly from my summation of Mills' work, yet you all have the audacity to remove my site http://www.asadi.org from the list of links. This is BS. m.asadi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.143.73 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@m.asadi - you should review the community norms and terms of contribution to Wikipedia. Contributing material here is not about pimping your work or artificially inflating your site's pagerank. Audacity has nothing to do with removing the link (and coincidentally, neither did I). I apologize if you find this arrangement frustrating, and I hope you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future. At the same time, I hope you'll take the time to learn more about the rules, responsibilities, and expectations that go along with it. Aaronshaw (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr Wells,but i think the page is excellent!The contributions from Regainfo on the subject in english and italian is worth some kind of award!Friendly Jan Milch


I tried to start cleaning up the opening paragraphs a bit. I also took a look at some of the sections on The Sociological Imagination. As others have said, the writing here is really very spotty, so I encourage more people to contribute!Aaronshaw (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the community "norms" that says that references should be removed together with source links as "pimping your website". This I find extremely offensive and rude, and it tells me that the moderator is overstepping his authority by making such comments. Thanks, m.asadi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.135.36 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M.asadi, I believe you are acting in good faith, but it is a conflict of interest to promote your own material by including it, especially when it is not clear what value it is adding to the article. If your material is notable, trust that it will be added independently by other editors. 203.217.150.68 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added C. Wright Mills photo but Bot took it a way assuming it was sabotage, but it is not, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:!!!Mills,C.W.JPG Juha Suoranta (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

The current self-made picture of Mills is very bad. So bad, in fact, the article would be better without it. I will remove it if no-one disagrees. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed most of the relatively easy to fix, but ...[edit]

gawgghh! that Outlook section....Haberstr (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

footnote one[edit]

Anyone able to fix the screaming red objections in footnotes to multiple different instances of footnote one?

"Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Mills.27_Letters_and_Autobiography" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).""

-50.82.34.254 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on C. Wright Mills. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the link, and it works. Not entirely sure the change was necessary, as original ref linked to archive; but I don't pretend to understand why these bots do what they do. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Links added[edit]

Hello, These are my first, hesitant edits to wikipedia. Added 4 internal links to George Mead, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and William James. H. Peston (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and good for you! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on C. Wright Mills. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 09:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on C. Wright Mills. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 11:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:C._Wright_Mills&oldid=1194731178"