This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Gerstle's book, Working-Class Americanism: The Politics of Labor in a Textile City, 1914-1960, is a good piece of "new labor history" scholarship. I am unclear as to why it should be mentioned in the references section, however. Isn't Gerstle's "preface" really a personal explanation of why he has adopted the "new labor history" approach?[1] This article is about "new labor history" itself—its development, controversies in the theory, its implementation and practice, its influence on the discipline of labor studies. Unless Gerstle's preface addresses "new labor history" theory directly, rather than explains why he himself likes it, I would suggest removing it from the references section. If it is appropriate, perhaps then an endnote should be added which explains why Gerstle's preface is worth reading. - Tim1965 23:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction to Gerstle's book's new edition is, somewhat, a personal statement of why he adopted the New Labor History, but it's largely a history of the movement itself, albeit from a personal angle. A reader who wants to know how the movement developed and spread would do well to read it. (Similarly, we might add to the list a chapter of Jim Green's memoir, but I don't have it with me to know which one.) 71.166.141.59 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
