Talk:Trofim Lysenko

Archives (Index)

1 s/ 1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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) 10:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Scientific merit"

In Dec 2021, content claiming Lysenko's work "had scientific merit" and "been highly praised by a number of world-famous scientists" was added to the lead and body based solely on a letter written by two scientists from China to the European Journal of Human Genetics.[1] Their letter was directly countered.[2] The extraordinary claims of the first letter appears to be a fringe view that is given WP:UNDUE weight by the manner in which it is included in the article. I'm removing the content sourced to that letter until talk page consensus determines how (if at all) the views in the letter should be addressed in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Good removal. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The "counter" is extraordinarily poor. While the Chinese biologists' letter carefully shows several points on which Lysenko was more scientifically correct than is reputed, the supposed rebuttal says nothing whatsoever about science; it only mudslings against his work with guilt-by-association because his scientific opponents were persecuted by the state-- a bad argument that makes no sense because, as the original letter had already pointed out, Lysenko was in no state position of authority to actually cause or instigate those persecutions. The supposed rebuttal also fails to show Lysenko's theories, even the bad ones, were to blame for natural famines-- probably because that assertion is entirely absurd. 128.114.255.145 (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Lysenko believed in Darwin according to his own works. His work was based on the scientific process that exposure to cold will increase in resistance as much as genes allow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:1905:7F01:8011:BA12:2D64:D4E3 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Biologist"?

"Biologist" is an over-statement. Biology is science; he believed in a version of Lamarckism which is pseudoscience. Even during his times and before, it was rejected as pseudoscience by his peers. He was a naturalist, not a biologist or scientist. This needs to be fixed SASP. — 185.115.6.250 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @ARoseWolf. Thanks for messaging. I don't understand what citation you think it requires. I made my argument in this section here, and there are more than enough sources in the article that his theories weren't scientific. What other source should I include? — 185.115.6.250 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You are trying to add specifically that he was a self-proclaimed biologist into the article. Anything you add requires a reliable source to verify your claim and it must be added to the article as a citation. Any interpretation or synthesis of current sources to make a claim that is not specifically stated by a source is in violation of our content policies. WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:SYNTH --ARoseWolf 20:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

And such source would be one that states he claimed it himself while scientific community rejected his beliefs/views? — 185.115.6.250 (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I just went through the sources and none of them call him a "biologist" either, so the article shouldn't state that. I can try to find sources that say that both he claimed to be a biologist and that his ideas was largely rejected by the scientific community at large. But in the meantime ... why should the article claim that he was a biologist? Especially since Lysenko rejected Mendelian/Darwinian hereditary principles in favour of Lamarckism? Wired's article is in a direct contradiction with what article claims one sentence before. — 185.115.6.250 (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, per WP:MOS if there are no reliable sources calling him a biologist then Wikipedia should not be using that term to refer to him by. --ARoseWolf 21:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Their statement is correct in the worst way-- one of that which is so obviously wrong but entrenches itself within the specific rules of a discourse so well as to not be disproven immediately by common sense.

The history of biology is rich and varied, from Anaximander to Uexkull. Lamarck, contrary to popular belief, was indeed a biologist. And so was Lysenko.

"Lysenko, a Soviet biologist, condemned perhaps millions of people to starvation through bogus agricultural research—and did so without hesitation."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia/548786/

"Trofim Lysenko, in full Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, (born 1898, Karlovka, Ukraine, Russian Empire—died November 20, 1976, Kiev, Ukrainian S.S.R.), Soviet biologist and agronomist, the controversial “dictator” of Communistic biology during Stalin’s regime. He rejected orthodox genetics in favour of “Michurinism” (named for the Russian horticulturist I.V. Michurin), which was begun by an uneducated plant breeder fashioning explanations for his hybrid creations. After Michurin’s death in 1935, Lysenko led the movement and transformed it into an assault on orthodox genetics."

a scientist who studies biology

[my emphasis]

From OED:

Biology: the scientific study of the life and structure of plants and animals

Biologist: a scientist who studies biology

An interesting detail is that when the Atlantic article cites one instance of the "unscientificity" of Lysenko:

"Lysenko began to “educate” Soviet crops to sprout at different times of year by soaking them in freezing water, among other practices. He then claimed that future generations of crops would remember these environmental cues and, even without being treated themselves, would inherit the beneficial traits. According to traditional genetics, this is impossible: It’s akin to cutting the tail off a cat and expecting her to give birth to tailless kittens."

The fact is that this process was already practiced by biologists, at least in Europe, and is called vernalization. And I will not bother to address the fact that they have plagiarized the rejected experiment of Weissmann on the inheritance of acquired traits.

Irrespective of this note, I believe I've now properly sourced that he was a biologist, no? 157.131.206.151 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The Atlantic is a journalistic source and not good enough for that claim. Talking about the same subjects as biologists do does not make you a biologist. Otherwise, Erich von Däniken would be an archaeologist and Immanuel Velikovsky an astronomer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

why don't you go edit the article on Lamarck, as well, then? 157.131.206.151 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

See Non sequitur (fallacy). --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Atlantic article that @ARoseWolf just quoted, which you seem to disapprove of, @Hob Gadling, is quoted seven times in this article. Do you defend the use of The Atlantic as a source for the claim that Lysenkoism killed millions, and if so, why do you not accept the same source for the claim that Lysenko is a biologist? Or do you reject both, and suggest removing all material sourced from The Atlantic from this article? Are you understanding the sequence of my thoughts, or is this another logical fallacy? Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work in the naive way you think, where a source is either black or white. When a journalistic source makes a statement that

• journalistic sources are expected to get right,
• is confirmed by other sources,

then the source is OK. When a journalistic source makes a statement that

• journalistic sources are not necessarily good at,
• is not confirmed by other sources,

then the source is questionable. Context matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling How about the Encyclopedia Britannica?

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Trofim-Lysenko Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I have a watchlist, you do not need to ping me. I also do not know why you would ask me specifically, since this is a question for everybody.

But as far as I know, secondary sources are better than tertiary ones such as encyclopedias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Harry Sibelius, I think you are mistaken. I never quoted any source here in this conversation. --ARoseWolf 16:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Also to note, Hob Gadling and I are in agreement. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If a source is not reliable then it should not be used. Also, context matters. --ARoseWolf 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolfI apologize, I meant to reply to 157.131.206.151. Harry Sibelius (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Source issue: "Graham, Loren (1933). Science in Russia and the Soviet Union."

In the second paragraph, there is a description of Lysenko's life after 1940. The source was published in 1933. How is this possible? Harry Sibelius (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not. I checked the date and corrected the typo. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Harry Sibelius (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

See also Loren Graham. I think there is a way to put that link into the references, but somebody else will probably be quicker than me in doing it. --Hob Gadling (talk)