Talk:Lysenkoism

[[Category: good articles|Lysenkoism]] Template:British English Oxford spelling

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Apparent over-simplifications and caricatures on many indirect sources

It seems to me that this is a situation akin to the popular over-simplification that assumes that Darwin himself was a "mendelian" rather than a "lamarckist" when contrasting his theory of evolution with that of Lamarck. Example of weakness in the article and the reference that I believe contradicts it: "However, unlike Michurin, he advocated a form of Lamarckism, insisting on using only hybridization and grafting, as non-genetic techniques". Now, from Lysenko himself, emphasis mine: Template:Quote

Not only it seems to me a striking contradiction to the commonly notion that he rejected genetics and insisted in some ridiculous infantile marxist-endorsed form of lamarckism, but it pretty much flips things on their head. Apparently Lysenko proposed actually more artificial selection than "mendelianists/morganists", which, on his view, were working under over-simplified assumptions regarding the purity of the lines used on farming. To which some famous and well reputed biologists of the time agreed, like JBS Haldane, here roughly confirming Lysenko's last point quoted above: Template:Quote The second text is actually critical of Lysenko, not entirely praising him. The first text is part of a series of speeches, where Vavilov preceded Lysenko, and they had some interactions, such as: Template:Quote Lastly, but not least, some contemporary biologists, dealing not only with biology, but with the aspect of political persecution, which they dispute: Template:Quote

Similar simplifications of scientific history also seem to be common on the subjects of mutationism/saltationsm versus gradualism, in itself, but also in ramifications such as its confusion and conflation with punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism, and even on the topic of abiogenesis, where Pasteur is often narrated as giving the last blow to "spontaneous generation", while he thought himself that parasitic worms were either spontaneously generated or a form of xenogenesis, an organism giving origin to an organism of another kind. And, as I said initially, Darwin himself, despite the common didactic contrast to Lamarck, was himself a "lamarckian", having his pangenesis theory of heredity rather than Mendelian genetics. Lysenko seems to be another instance, probably boosted by the potential of a red scare-like usage in ideological discourse.

Too long to read.

Please tell us in a few short sentences which changes you want to make in the article. If you do not want any changes in the article, you are on the wrong page. Forums are somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any simple change would fix it, but rather that it may be necessary to have a more extensive process of review and editing, based more on primary sources (ideally including direct quotes of Lysenko or pertinent lysenkoists), rather than only/mostly those already speaking of the concept of "lysenkoism", echoing distorted notions, possibly including made-up strawmen. The temporary fix would be to rephrase some definite statements of facts as more explicitly statements of claims/opinions of people/sources addressing "lysenkoism", perhaps contrasted with the respective opposing views. Or maybe an entire "criticism" section regarding such distortions, according to those making points like those of Wang and Liu on Nature. I'll see if I find more about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.134.130 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are to be used with care. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lysenko in field with wheat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lysenko in field with wheat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Lysenkovism and Marxism

These claims look very odd:

"Marxism–Leninism postulated "universal and immutable laws of history" (historical materialism and dialectical materialism), which assumed unavoidable large-scale change at the collective level of societies.; Darwin's concept of a random mutation in an individual being able to propagate and transform subsequent generations was at odds with the ideology, and was perceived as having a strong liberal inclination. Marxist–Leninist theorists presented Lysenkoism as a new branch of biology, arguing that "dialectic method shows that development is carried out in a dual form: evolutionary and revolutionary." Darwin was attributed with discovering "only the evolutionary" path, while Michurin and Lysenko were presented as making a "great step forward" toward the discovery of a "revolutionary" path of biologic development."

First, the claim about "mutations" as a part of Darwin's theory is anachronism: Darwin didn't know anything about DNA and the mechanism of heredity. Second, Darwin had always been a "sacred cow" of Marxists-Leninists: it was incorporated into the Soviet ideological doctrine, and it was its integral part. See, for example, this. In that sense, Marx's opinion does not matter, for its interpretation by Soviet official ideologists is much more relevant. In connection to that, to me, the main puzzle of Lysenko is how he, being a pure Lamarquist, managed to convince authorities in compliance of his "theory" with Marxism? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC) Template:Reflist talk

Actually, the same source confirms that Lysenko criticised genetics as purely anti-Darwinist (sic!). I really cannot understand how he, being a Lamarquist, pretended to be a Darwinist, however, that is the fact.

I am going to change this paragraph after I get a couple of other sources that confirm my initial conclusion. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. Perhaps the phrase about "Marxist–Leninist theorists presented Lysenkoism ..." could be included somewhere, but basically the Lysenkoism was created not by "Marxist–Leninist theorists", but by Lysenko (and by Stalin who officially supported his "theory"). My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the real story appeared to be more nuanced. I modified the article accordingly. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Lamarckism versus Darwinism

This is described in a lot of sources, but one can find brief summary here [1]. Yes, Darwin suggested an erroneous hypothesis of Pangenesis. But none of textbooks I read considers pangenesis "an integral part" of Darwinism. Neither does our page Darwinism (correctly). But is it really related to Lysenko and his "theories"? Did Lysenko try to justify his views by referring to Pangenesis? If so, that might be included, but I did not see this in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the new text mostly based on what the article in Science says. That is a big surprise for me that Darwin partially supported Lamarcism, however, I have no reason not to trust to this source. Just read it, and then we can discuss how to improve the text. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That source is old and not available online, even with my subscription. There are many others (like the link I gave you; there are many books, etc.), and none of them say that Pangenesis was "an integral part" of Darwinism as his evolutionary theory. Of course it was not. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. There is no any "pangenesis" in the book. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It is available from jstor.org. I cannot post large pieces of text here per NFCC. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is how EB does it [2]: "In On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin accepted the principle of the inheritance of acquired characteristics as one of the factors contributory to evolution. This endorsement of Lamarckism has resulted in some confusion in terminology. Thus, in the Soviet Union, Lamarckism was labeled “creative Soviet Darwinism” until it lost its official endorsement in 1965.", and so on. But it does not mean that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was "an integral part" of Darwin's theory described in On the Origin of Species. It was not. As our page correctly say, "Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. The book presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution." Yes, sure. That was science. In contrast, the inheritance of acquired characteristics (as claimed by Lysenko) was a pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't write that Lamarcism was an "integral part" of Darwin's theory. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you did [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ops...

I checked the source, and, yes, it is less categorical. I fixed the wording, the rest is in agreement with what the source says. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

An apparent inheritance of acquired properties via epigenetic mechanisms is not a pseudoscience. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The denial of genetics by Lysenko is not epigenetics. My very best wishes (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that, however, some recent articles discuss a possibility that some of Lysenko's results were not a pure artifact, but a result of epigenetic inheritance (which was not a true inheritance and disappeared after few generations). Paul Siebert (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Lysenkoism is a pure pseudoscience, even worse, a political campaign to prosecute mainstream biologists (same meaning in Russian, i.e. Лысенковщина). I do not think any part of it can qualify as science.My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course it was. I am talking about a different aspect of that story: was everything what Lysenko observed a pure artifact or even forgery, or there were some real phenomenae that he failed to properly explain? Re-read my post. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. I do not have any more time for this. My very best wishes (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Western commentators' use of the term

A section of the article that has become a recent subject of debate involves Western commentators' use of the term "Lysenkoism" as shorthand for political correctness and the "cancellation" of rational inquiry deemed politically unpalatable to mostly liberal or left-leaning social justice causes. The section was thoroughly cited using mainstream, if heterodox, commentators who each have their own Wikipedia entry, and who used the actual term "Lysenkoism" verbatim in their critiques, so it's not like "fringe" outlets such as Alex Jones or Stormfront, or nobody bloggers, are being cited. I am of the opinion that this section -- which was published under the subheading of Lysenkoism discussed "in other countries" outside of Russia -- bears relevance, because it demonstrates that his name is still being invoked to represent political suppression of science real or perceived, and is thus a significant data point on his legacy. If Russia itself has demonstrated a willingness towards a "revival" of Lysenko's theories in the 21st century, then IMO it is not irrelevant to mention or discuss Western critiques by contemporary authors also. Particularly under a subheading that specifically incorporates examples of Lysenko's invocation in other countries outside of Russia.

This burgeoning edit war strikes me as being a revival of the intense debate over "Cultural Marxism" some years back, and IMO it should not be. The paragraph is relevant to the discussion of Lysenko's theories and legacy as someone whose name has become synonymous with the politicized suppression of science. It is not a conspiracy theory i.e. the Great Replacement. It would be quite ironic if those who wish to exclude this section because they personally deem it politically inconvenient to their own perspectives on what is or is not "pseudoscience" are engaging in Lysenkoism... on the page dedicated to Lysenkoism.

2601:196:8801:C300:F9C6:5FF0:1AB5:FBBB (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Instead of going back and forth redoing and undoing this paragraph, consider the opening paragraph of the article itself, which clearly states: "In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable." Refer also to Indirect relevance is sometimes OK -- the 21st century Western commentators' perspectives that specifically used the term "Lysenkoism" verbatim in their critiques, are a clear example of later works that have influenced the subject. This is not editorializing. It is clearly relevant as a continuation of Lysenko's legacy being referenced in a contemporary context; the individuals registering those critiques all meet the notability guidelines by virtue of having pages of their own, and the paragraph is correctly categorized under the subheading of Lysenkoism being invoked in other countries outside of Russia. This should not be difficult to understand. There is no violation here. A definition for "meta-Lysenkoism" or "Lysenko-ception" should not have to be coined to reflect Lysenkoism being applied to a Wikipedia entry about Lysenkoism itself. 2601:196:8801:C300:F8E3:1EA0:6BA3:6E41 (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph is essentially about people using the word "Lyssenkoism" as an insult, directly using Dreher, McWhorter and Wade as WP:PRIMARY sources doing that. What you need is WP:SECONDARY sources reporting on that use of the term. Since your main method is trying to force the text into the article by edit war, contrary to the policy-based method of WP:BRD, which you had explained to you, your claims that your opponents are applying Lyssenkoism are hypocritical.

The text stays out until you have consensus to include it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

How are these not secondary sources. They are not biographies of Lysenko or writings from his own contemporaries; they are present-day analyses of Lysenko's philosophy and work.

Furthermore, no explanation was given for the edits other than "relevance" (which did not mention primary or secondary sourcing), which appears to go against Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers and Revert Only When Necessary. Other users have agreed with including this paragraph, while others have not. I realise that is not a consensus, since there is obviously disagreement, but you say "first get consensus on the talk page," yet no one else has bothered to show.

This was not vandalism and was an edit made in good faith. 2601:196:8801:C300:F8E3:1EA0:6BA3:6E41 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The first time, it was not vandalism. But as soon as your BOLD edit is reverted, you should not edit-war it back in, but start discussing. If you do not even admit that mistake, there is no point discussing anything with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The disputed section is off-topic for the article. It isn't about Lysenkoism at all. It is about political commentators discussing another topic entirely using 'Lysenkoism' as a derogatory phrase, or at best as an analogy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Hob Gadling and AndyTheGrump's comments. The addition by the IP is on political and social uses of Lysenkoism for modern issues like wokism or gender identity/equality. But this article is about the scientific uses and the history of Lysenkoism in biology and politics in relation to scientists, political influences in science education, and the public. Looks like the additions were WP:COATRACK.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in case there's any repeat, I agree that the addition was off-topic for this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

3,000 biologists

What is the specific reference source of the figure that more than 3,000 biologists were dismissed or imprisoned as a result of Lysenkoism? It's currently mentioned in two places in this article, but neither place has a clear reference source for this number. BowTieTuba (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I moved this into its own section. You seemed to respond to a four-year-old unrelated thread.

Are you saying that you checked the Wade, Swedin, and Soyfer sources? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and moving this to a separate thread. It's difficult to ascertain the source of the claim regarding 3,000 biologists, because this claim does not currently have a reference citation. The sentence in which the claim regarding 3,000 biologists is contained does not have a citation reference, and the sources you reference appear to be sources regarding a decline in crop yields due to Lysenkoism, not necessarily the claim about 3,000 biologists which is apparently important enough that it's also used in the introduction to the article. If you've checked the Wade, Sweden, and Soyfer sources, do you know which in particular is used as the reference for this claim in the earlier sentence? BowTieTuba (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not checked them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Could we add a citation needed tag to the sentence in the body of the article with the claim of 3,000 biologists until it can be determined what the reference source for this claim is? BowTieTuba (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to @Ramos1990 for their care in clarifying this number by providing the reference and source quotation. BowTieTuba (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Religiously?

From the lede:

In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.

Where in the article is religion mentioned to justify its inclusion here? patsw (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

rm "religiously" from lede. not supported in article text patsw (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

First section completely lacking citations

The first section of this page has no citations and is written as though it's meant to bias the reader against the topic of the page. I feel like someone with better understanding of wikipedia norms etc than me should either heavily edit it or maybe just scrap the majority of it. 24.62.207.17 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEDECITE --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

Shouldn't social Darwinism be included in the section "Context"?--Miguelferig (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Why should it? What is the connection? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda and lies should not be part of an article.

"Soviet agriculture around 1930 was in a crisis due to Stalin's forced collectivisation of farms and extermination of kulak farmers."

This is false. At that time, Soviet authorities were literally negotiating with farmers, with many big selfowning farmers wanting the advantages of collectivisation(like getting a free tractor), without giving up ownership, which obviously created friction.

Soviet farming at the time however were overall doing reasonably well, as it was thanks to that, that it was capable of exporting food to other nations.

"The resulting Soviet famine of 1932–1933"

This literally claims the famine was caused by human actions. This is blatantly and obviously false as anyone who has studied it knows that it was caused by severe bad weather. This is easily proven, every place in USSR that was badly affected by weather, had famine, were at risk of famine, or drastically had to reduce their export of food, while regions not affected by the bad weather had no major changes in their harvests.

Both above claims are cold war propaganda and even pre-WWII propaganda. 178.174.137.47 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to based on sources. You give no sources, so we cannot use what you say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)