This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the
history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
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 --
ARoseWolf20:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. --
ARoseWolf21:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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."
"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.
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)reply
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
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. --
ARoseWolf16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
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)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the
history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
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)reply
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)reply
"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)reply
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)reply
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 --
ARoseWolf20:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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. --
ARoseWolf21:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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."
"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.
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)reply
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
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. --
ARoseWolf16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)reply
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)