Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 April 16

= April 16 =

Seima-Turbino genetics
What haplogroups are associated with this migration? déhanchements (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Relevant article: Seima-Turbino phenomenon (but no answer there) —2606:A000:1126:28D:4C9F:5854:38AB:65A9 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like they may fit under the umbrella of Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA).
 * Source 1: The time and geographic range of the Seima-Turbino migrations coincide with the dating and geographic range of haplogroup N1b (N-P43Ö, however haplogroup N1b is estimated to be about 4000 years old, and spread northwards and westwards from Southern Siberia exactly the same time and same way as the Seima-Turbino migrations did.
 * Source 2: Taken together, these facts hint at the Seima-Turbino metalsmith-traders as the probable primary carriers of hg N3a3’6 lineages. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I notice that in the article Seima-Turbino phenomenon linked by the first responder above, the article's lede is a word-for-word copy of the first paragraph of Section 1 immediately following. Perhaps someone with a better formal grasp of the subject than myself (who had never heard of it before now) would like to rewrite the lede to better summarise the whole article? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Politics vs Political Science
Hey all! I am definitely someone who should know better, but what is the specific difference between Politics and Political Science? I get that Political Science is just the study of politics, but doesn't that overlap with itself since Politics is just the process by which government resources are allocated? I must be missing something here. Kindest Regards, &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In the same way that a historian is not a soldier, a political scientist is not a politician. A politician's job is to pretend to represent the interests of his constituents, which requires campaigning, debating, lobbying, negotiating and legislating. The political scientist does not need to do these things, and therefore does not need to be any good at them. His job is to study politics while applying the scientific method, in the interest of learning how and why certain outcomes occur, in the interest of creating simplified models that allow future outcomes to be predicted. It would absolutely make sense for a politician to employ a political scientist as an adviser, since while it's still the politician who has to be good at politics, the political scientist can let him know how similar things have gone in the past and which variables seem to be important. Back to the analogy, there is a reason that military academies teach history. Our articles will be separate because articles about political science will be about the tools and methods used by political scientists. That is, those articles will be about how politics is studied. Whereas articles on politics, while many of the sources will be written by political scientists, are simply about what politics are and have been. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for that answer! I suppose I was a bit confused since I am both a politician and a political science major. This response really helped me put that into deeper perspective. They really are two seperate things when you put it like that! :) &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say that the difference between the parliamentary system and the presidential system is an example of a topic in political science, that a poli sci major might study. A politician on the other hand would mostly care about the system they were actually working in. Maybe that also helps convey the idea. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)