User talk:AndreJustAndre

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

Contentious topics awareness

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Continued discussion from Arbcom page

Apologies for my misunderstanding of the issue as I was reading the citation's excerpt & foolishly forgot to check the actual context it was used for.

While I still believe Nadia Abu El Haj makes significant points worthy of inclusion, I agree that this -

"A Jewish "biological self-definition" has become a standard belief for many Jewish nationalists, and most Israeli population researchers have never doubted that evidence will one day be found, even though so far proof for the claim has "remained forever elusive"."

is an inaccurate claim & that it misunderstands the point she is making entirely. She isn't saying that there will never be proof of shared genetics among Jews. Instead, she points out that, at the time, even when the science wasn't there yet to prove it, it was treated as a guaranteed truth regardless, with research being driven to retroactively prove that conclusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Butterscotch, and no need to apologize. Andre🚐 22:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Anthropology

Hello there. I read what you wrote about El-Haj, and you really don't understand how broad Anthropology can get. I majored in Socio-Cultural Anthropology. Our academic system is rather weird; my title is called a "Licenciatura," for which you need to take a year as a general intro and then five years of the actual career. To earn the degree, you need to write a thesis and defend it to a jury of professors. I don't know what the equivalent title would be in other countries.

There are, as well, two specializations from which you are forced to choose one, and they comprise around 2/5ths of all classes. I majored, as I said, in the Socio-Cultural branch, but there's also Archaeological Anthropology, which has a heavier emphasis on biology.

My main point is that even I had biology as part of the curriculum. I had to study genetics and, mainly, population genetics. Dealing with allele frequencies is basic stuff. And remember that those who specialize in Archaeology have several more biology-related classes. 2800:250A:B:FC5C:F4B7:217E:324D:EA90 (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between studying something at the undergrad level or taking a few 100-level biology classes for science seminar or science gened requirement for your undergrad degree in anthropology, and being an expert on the topic of genetic research who publishes papers on that topic. It's true that the basics of genetics would be covered in a broad overview of biology. That doesn't qualify El-Haj to write critical stuff about actual geneticists. We don't qualify people to be expert Wikipedia sources who have an undergrad-level understanding of a topic. To become an expert, you need to not only probably have a master's and a PhD, but also practice your field for a number of years. Harry Ostrer is a professor of genetics and medicine for over 20 years at a top institution and director of a genetics testing department for a top hospital. It's absurd to say that El-Haj has a parity level that she should be used at his expense because she studied it for requirements in undergrad. Hear how absurd that sounds, anon? Andre🚐 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)