Talk:Lysenkoism

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:

[...] To us, followers of Michurin, it is clear that seeds of one and the same variety can be by their nature (genotype) better or worse. The nature of plants and animals can be improved or deteriorated. Hence, one of the basic tasks of the local selection stations is to do everything needed to improve, from year to year, the variety from which the elite seed is taken.

Our Soviet Darwinian agro-biological science must work out the scientific bases for the improvement of seed. This is indispensable in order that the elite strains of various cultures produced each year by the selection stations may be better compared to the seeds which they are destined to replace.

A second example: The Mendelians have continually blamed us (and still do), for not appreciating the teachings of Johannsen, and for taking a critical attitude toward this "classic" of biological science. We do not dispute with Johannsen, but with his present day followers. The same, naturally, with Mendel, Why should we disturb him who has departed and is at rest? But with his followers, with those who develop the conceptions of Mendel, we not only dispute, but we reject all their fantasies, because they interfere both with science and with practice.

As a matter of fact, why did we start to raise objections to the Johannsenists? Because the followers of Johannsen-Mendelian-Morganists-forbade by their theory such a practically proved method of improving plant varieties as beneficial selection.

For example, many agronomists and farmers know the spring wheat variety Liuteszens-062. This variety was initiated in 1911 at the Saratov selection station by means of selection of ears of the spring wheat Poltavka. The descendants of the selected ears were sown separately in order to determine which of them was the best. The descendants of one of the ears selected in 1911, having proved the best in the judgment of the selectors as the result of various tests, was called Liuteszens-062.

According to Johannsen's theory of pure lines, as our Mendelians understand it, any further selection of Liuteszens-062 and comparison with the original variety is not necessary. Selection within a so-called pure line, as Johannsen asserted, is ineffectual. But who will believe that the billions of plants of the Liuteszens-062 grown on millions of acres in various regions of the Union in the course of 20 years have not changed, but have remained the same? Who will believe that it is undesirable and unscientific to carry out a selection within such sowings? But a selection has not been carried out. Consequently, for over a period of 20 years, no new improved variety has been produced by means of selection from Liuteszens-062, as was done, e.g., in 1911 by selection from Poltavka.

The Mendelians assert that thanks to the theory of Johannsen individual selection began to be carried out on a wide scale. As a matter of fact, on account of the Johannsenists, beneficial selection in the practice of our selection work was, as a rule, discontinued on collective and state farms. This is why I disputed with Johannsen; not because I don't like Johannsen personally, but because the Mendelians support his theory, and propagandize for it in our advanced courses; and this has resulted in discontinuance of frequent selection and of year to year improvement.

Reflecting on this problem, experimenting, reading not only Mendelians and Morganists, but other authors as well, whose theories contradict the bases of Mendelism-Morganism, for instance such classics as Darwin, Timiryazev, Michurin, Burbank, and others, we came to the conclusion that there can not be pure strains in the absolute sense. [...]

— Lysenko, Science and Society Volume IV, No. 3, Summer 1940

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:

[...] His next point, the importance of selection in the F1, or first hybrid generation, is correct if the hybrids are not between pure lines. As we saw, pure lines are ideals which are rarely quite realized, and agricultural varieties may be very far from pure lines [...].

— JBS Haldane, Science and Society, Volume IV, No. 4, Fall 1940

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:

[...] [Vavilov:] Great events have occurred in recent years in the application of the chromosome theory to the sphere of remote hybridization of unrelated forms. What greater miracle can we imagine in our biological science, comrades, than we are witnessing in the transformation of completely sterile hybrids into fertile seed and pollen bearers, accompanied by a reduplication of the chromosomes under the influence of specific factors.

Lysenko: Which factors?

Vavilov: Physical and chemical factors of which we know a great number. Particularly we must note the remarkable work of Academician A. A. Shmuk in our country who founded the theory of chemical induction invoking polyploidy in hybrid and non-hybrid forms. Dozens of chemical compounds are available for this purpose. The latest work of Academician Shmuk, who is unfortunately seriously ill at present, showed that one of these substances is colchicine, a readily soluble compound which acts on many diverse kinds of plants. Physical agents, such as temperature, and biological factors, as for example, the incision of plants, may also be effective. [...] If we study such a property as the baking characteristics of flours from different varieties of grain, it is very difficult to deal with it genetically. But even when we work with complex characters we must be guided by the rules established by Mendel, by the theory of polymorphous characters worked out by Nilsson-Ehle.

I go on to the next point. They tell us: "Stop engaging in sex hybridization. Replace sex hybridization by vegetative hybridization. The latter is much simpler."

Lysenko: Who said that and where did he say it?

Vavilov: In recent months I have had the opportunity of visiting a number of selection stations, and have seen how the work on ordinary hybridization was being abandoned, and the workers, especially the young ones, were engaged particularly with grafts.

Voice: At what station?

Vavilov: For example at the Polar Station.

Voice: There they have abandoned it altogether.

Vavilov: Yes, they have stopped occupying themselves with the hybrids of wheat and barley, and changed over to "vegetative hybridization." The only department where sexual hybridization is still applied, is concerned with potatoes.

As a matter of fact, is it not tempting to take the easier path instead of dealing with distributions, with generations, instead of carrying out long calculations and observations? It is simpler that way. Just graft an unstable variety on a stable sort and even on another stable variety, and then go ahead, multiply the scion on which the stock has to act in corresponding fashion.

M. M. Zavadovsky: Each stalk by itself?

Vavilov: Yes, I must say that here and there, this method is proposed.

Lysenko: Who proposes and where? You have not said that.

Vavilov: I said that this is being practiced in a number of stations.

Lysenko: Who proposes it and where?

Vavilov: Obviously, under your influence. It may be that I have misunderstood. If that is so, I should be extremely glad. In any case, it is your influence.

Lysenko: My influence has lasted only a year; yours has lasted more than twenty.

Vavilov: I don't want to speak either of my influence or yours. I have to speak of the modern point of view, supported by enormous Soviet and foreign experience. I consider it my duty to tell of this as a worker who has devoted three decades to plant husbandry. I consider it my duty to describe the situation in order to get a balanced account. What is happening is a serious disagreement not only with Vavilov, but with contemporary developments of biological science.

Prezent: Including Burbank.

Vavilov: Burbank was theoretically weak. I suppose I had better opportunities than others did to study Burbank and his work and his practical achievements. In the field of theory we need not take Burbank into account.

[...]

Lastly, but not least, some contemporary biologists, dealing not only with biology, but with the aspect of political persecution, which they dispute:

[...] Harper regarded Lysenko as a fraudulent agronomist. We disagree with him on this fundamental point. We are thinking that he was greatly misled by Medvedev’s book, The Rise and Fall of TD Lysenko,2 which he cited in his article. It should be noted that there are many misleading statements in this book. For example, in chapter 8, Medvedev argued against the validity of Lysenko’s work on plant graft hybridization, ... Over the past several decades, extensive experiments on graft hybridization have been carried out and numbers of new crops and varieties were developed by grafting, indicating that graft-induced variant characteristics were stable and inheritable.3 Now it has been proposed that graft hybridization may serve as a mechanism of horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer. Thus, it is not proper to continue to regard Lysenko as a fraudulent agronomist. [...]

Lysenko’s work on the conversion of spring wheat into winter wheat can be explained by transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.6 .... Harper also mentioned Lysenko’s errors and crimes, as well as the death of numerous researchers in genetics.1 The impression which one gets from reading this paragraph is that Lysenko was responsible for the death of these geneticists. We fear that this view is too one-sided and not supported by historical evidence. It is true that Lysenko disputed with Vavilov and many other geneticists on some genetic viewpoints. But we must know that Lysenko was a leading Soviet scientist in agriculture and genetics. He was not the NKVD chief, thus he had no power to arrest geneticists. Lysenko himself repeatedly maintained that he was not personally responsible for Vavilov’s arrest and death. [...]

It is not our intention to minimize Lysenko’s mistakes and to exalt his contributions, but we must try to see things in their right proportion. Actually, some of Lysenko’s work had a certain scientific merit, which was recognized internationally. [...]

— Zhengrong Wang & Yongsheng Liu, European Journal of Human Genetics volume 25, pages 1097–1098 (2017)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lysenkoism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review

First pass, some thing that jumped out at me

Lead

• para 1: Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964. While this bookends Lysenko's career and influence, it feels like a bit of a stretch. Lysenko started calling his techniques Michurinism c. 1935 in an attempt to shoehorn his ideas onto Michurin's. As for the end date, Lysenko remained in his position until 1965, and because it had made its way into textbooks, Lysenkoism continued to have a major impact for another decade or more.

Yes. Said it was in the mid-20th century.

• The first reference points to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I don't believe that dictionaries are appropriate sources for the meaning of scientific (or pseudoscientific) concepts, but more importantly, the dictionary entry doesn't support the idea that Lysenkoism is Lamarckism. (It is Lamarckism, or at least Neo-Lamarckism, but the source doesn't support the claim.)

Removed: we don't need any citation there actually.

• Quotes around "gene", "natural selection" - these aren't actual quotes, and it isn't really a "words as words", so I'd suggest removing them.

Done.

Lysenko's claims

• While the paragraphs are numbered, this isn't a list. I'd suggest getting rid of the numbers.

Done.

• This section relies heavily on Charles Leone's 1952 article, and I have my doubts about it as a source. Leone's work is a bit polemic, and it isn't a dispassionate historical look at Lysenkoism - it's written in the thick of things, and is too much of a point-by-point refutation. With another almost 70 years of perspective, I'm not sure we should be relying so directly on Leone.

Good point. Cut down Leone greatly, added newer sources.

• • In particular, I have a problem with this: In reality, the technique was neither new nor Soviet (it was discovered at Michigan State College in 1854. The school now known as Michigan State University was founded in 1855 and classes didn't start until 1857. So Leone's date is wrong. Following his usage in terms of naming the school also creates a bit of an anachronism. While it was called Michigan State College when Leone was writing in 1952, it was not called that in the mid-19th century. While one error does not invalidate Leone's work, it does seem like we need to rely on other, preferably more recent, sources.

Removed the mention of the College.

Rise

• The second and third paragraphs of this section lack citations, as does the second half of the fifth paragraph.

Cited.

Fall

• Reading this, it seems like Lysenkoism fell with Stalin, but both Lysenko's Wikipedia bio and this article suggest that even after Stalin's death, Lysenko remained in favour until the death of Khrusschev.

The section already says that the ban went only in the mid-1960s, and that there was repression under Kruschev. I've copy-edited the section to make this clearer.

Legacy

• The article suggests that Lysenkoism fell with Lyseenko, but this article discusses a rise in Lysenkoism in modern Russia. Have you considered mentioning this for completeness?

Done.

Other

• The article has an overlinking problem.

Removed all per Highlight duplicate links tool.

• This article says Lysenko denied DNA - but DNA wasn't truly "discovered" in popular science until the 1950s, and wasn't popularized until the 1960s - long after these theories began in the 1920s. Not defending these ideas, just pointing out this article makes no sense. Seems to be based around only a handful of sources, primarily one: "Joravsky, David (1986) [1970]. The Lysenko Affair. University Of Chicago Press." Lysenko's theories, some could argue, were not totally incorrect since we later discovered that there are "revolutionary" genetic changes that occur (though via DNA, not by some random force as described in these theories). 2603:7000:8C01:1513:F5EC:38CC:FB6:8C07 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Nice article, and good job getting it to this state. I've always found Lysenko fascinating (despite my vast admiration for Vavilov). Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, and I'll get to this very shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good Chiswick Chap. Thanks for your work improving this article. Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 22 February 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) 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)

References

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)