Talk:The Second Shift

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

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bibliography[edit]

This page mainly focuses on the book termed "the second shift". I would like to provide information relating to our current society and how the "second shift" impacts women and families all across the country. I have found these sources that will help me contribute to the page. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/25/books/she-minds-the-child-he-minds-the-dog.html?pagewanted=all http://time.com/money/4509368/lean-in-mckinsey-women-corporate-america/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/08/06/the-second-shift-at-25-q-a-with-arlie-hochschild/?utm_term=.45d2668834dd https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1100&context=ur http://red-party.com/women-work-and-the-second-shift/Katiej2727! (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katiej2727! I think adding that information to the encyclopedia sounds like a really good idea. But I'm not sure that it belongs in this article, which is specifically about the 1971 book. Some of the content from the links you provided that relate specifically to the book might be helpful additions to this article, but I think information about the concept more generally would belong in a different article – probably the existing article called Double burden, which seems to deal with basically the same phenomenon. This is because Wikipedia's policy on original research prevents us from drawing links that aren't made explicit in the sources we're citing: so the sources that mention Hochschild and the book are good sources for this article, but ones that don't (e.g. the Time article) aren't so much. Finally, you might also wish to take a look (if you haven't already) at Wikipedia's guidelines on Identifying reliable sources, because I'm not sure that the final source you've listed above would satisfy that guideline's criteria. Let me know here or at my talk page if you have any questions about any of the above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]