Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
but for
things like Israeli history (I'm not sure if Alex was
reffering to page history or actual history, I haven't
read his message yet), there is widespread
disagreement about basic underlying facts, not to
mention people's motives, both of which are essential
to creating a good textbook. To represent both of
these views in a single textbook could be confusing to
many kids below the college level (not all of them,
but a significant amount). At the elementary school
level, simplification to a DPOV is absolutely
necessary so that all of the kids in the class can
follow it.
Well, I don't agree with this at all. But until we actually face a
concrete example where NPOV is impossible or too burdensome, we should
proceed under the assumption that it's our policy and we're sticking
to it.
Textbooks for young children need to be clear and
simple, something which NPOV has a deficiency in.
I don't agree that there's any _necessary_ tension at all between
neutrality and clarity and simplicity. The argument that "we have to
be biased, because bias is the only thing simple enough for kids to
understand" strikes me as completely spurious.
possible POVs on the topic. We could also write a
little about other POVs, but within actual textbooks,
we can't give them equal time.
This is where I don't think you really understand NPOV. NPOV does not
require 'equal time'. It's perfectly NPOV to limit the scope of a
particular book or chapter or article to a specific topic, and to
write about that topic in a neutral manner.
--Jimbo