SBJohnny wrote:
Actually, 2 of our philosophy books are rather missionary too, one mostly advocating for a "Universal Religion". I don't think there's any baby in that bathwater...
That book already had been up for VfD this year (i dont remember precisely when), but the general consensus was to keep it because it didnt violate NPOV, and didn't explicitly violate Original Reseach. That book is what I would call a "grey area", and without a specific "textbook" definition, most people were reluctant to delete it because it wasn't a cut-and-dry case.
I think keeping the textbook definition fairly vague is better than pigeon-holing it. Aside from texts that might be used for graduate school through kindergarden, there is other materials that might be used for emergency preparedness and response, scouting, etc.
Precisely! The word "textbook" can be so vast if we want it to be. Consider youth groups, or senior-citizen groups. Consider excercise classes at the gym, or home-improvement courses at home depot. There is alot of material that can be learned outside the walls of a school or university. A definition for "textbook" would need to account for all of this, without allowing all the blatant nonsense. This contradiction is, i think, the reason why we haven't produced a satisfactory definition for the word yet.
I do understand the dislike for video game guides... I don't think I'd want to see a book on "how to use a beer bong" for similar reasons. Some video games are (I'm told) educational, and I think having something about them might be ok. Shoot-em-up games (etc.) might be good for hand-eye coordination, but having a book about the game isn't necessarily going to enhance this.
Again, a grey area that we can't really decide on one way or another until we define "textbook". Unfortunately, the decision might be made for us, because it seems like the videogame guides that we have left are migrating out of their own accord.
--Andrew Whitworth