![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I removed a lot of the preexisting text because much of it was suspect if not just wrong (i.e. the notion that after WWII Stalin rejected "science" as a whole -- that is pure nonsense despite his presumptuous leaning in on certain scientific questions, anyway Lysenkoism is BEFORE WWII anyway so it's hardly the way to start out a "Biography" section, is it?). As it was the only facts about Trofim Lysenko's life were scattershot and potentially quite false. Maybe I'll get time to add in some actual facts later but we'll see. Until then it is a biostub in my opinion. What this article should have:
Most of these are pretty straight questions (many of the print sources in Lysenkoism cover this). As it stands though the article was more likely to misinform than to inform. -- Fastfission 06:06, 12 October 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone else Google:doi:10.1038/35088598 or is it just because I'm at uni? Dunc_Harris| ☺ 13:38, 12 October 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't Andrei Sakharov also crucial in discrediting Lysenko? I remember there was quite a lot about that in his Memoirs, which I unfortunately don't have handy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joke137 ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
There was a recent BBC biography of SF author John Wyndham in which it was presented as fact that Lysenko "Invented" the nectarine through experiments involving radiation. Presumably this is untrue! Presumably, also, it is a myth which has legs, in order to fool the researchers for a BBC TV program (or am I being naieve?) - it might be worth mentioning. 62.69.54.97 20:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Andy Jones
The two articles are extremely heavily overlap. There is almost nothing to say in Lysenko's bio but about his Lysenkoism. mikka (t) 01:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The answer here is that the bio needs to be more solidly rooted in chronology, and while it should make regular note of Lysenkoism it shouldn't try to lay out precisely what it means. Alternatively, we can merge. We're getting overlap because the people writing each article weren't looking at the other. Fearwig 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysenko was a scientist with a practical mind. Types of grain developed by him and his team are still in use in Russia and other former soviet republics.
If you read this article attentively you notice that there is no any proof given for any accusations against Lysenko. The only political propaganda. No documents, no citation of people in this field. He is made monster just for his eagerness to feed starving nation. He was not interested in pure truth maybe, he was interested to invent grains with more yield to feed people.
Very monstrous indeed. -- Zha 10:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
While the article isn't "complete bs" (see above), I have to say it doesn't come across as purely objective. Lysenko's science has been debunked by modern understanding (and indeed contemporary understanding), but sentences like--
"Lysenko's 'science' was practically nonexistent. When he had any clearly formed theories, they were generally a mishmash of Lamarckism and various confused forms of Darwinism"
--really ruin the encyclopedic tone. It's also a generalization and in some ways a misrepresentation. Lysenko's following often accused the "menshevizing idealists" (his detractors) of harboring Darwinian ideals. Social Darwinism was considered the philosophy of the capitalist bourgeoisie, and by connection so were aspects of scientific Darwinism (note the overlap between social philosophy and science, really interesting stuff in the context of communist theory). Another problem with this article is that a lot of the contemporary critics of Lysenko had been personally affected by his personality cult, many had seen friends committed or imprisoned. Medvedev is a prime example. While it's only logical to note the inconsistencies in Lysenko's methods, there is a lot of hearsay here, and the controversy was really heated at the time, some of it too much so to be reliably citable. Having written some historiographical criticisms on Medvedev, I can tell you there's a lot in The Rise and Fall to be doubted. Because of that, I think the article needs to be a little clearer in terms of sourcing statements. You can say that he has been accused of falsifying results, for instance, but you shouldn't just say he falsified results. Fearwig 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The judgemental tone needs to be neutralized quite a bit. Statements like this in the article opening, "politician who made pretense of being a biologist" (Lysenko had a doctorate in agricultural science from the Kiev Agricultural Institute), or editorializing like "typical peasant "miracle" of the early Soviet press", are not a npov voice. The article needs to better let the facts stand without editorializing. And opinions or judgements offered here need to be associated more directly to the source of those opinions, preferably with footnotes. Professor marginalia 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Really, it's hard to take the article seriously - or even want to read it - when it begins so tendentiously (and I think it needs to be re-written by a native speaker of English)
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Lysenko further impressed political officials with his success in motivating peasant farmers. ... Lysenko energized the enthusiasm of the peasants, and led them to feel they held an empowered role in the Soviet revolutionary experiment
This needs a bit of clarification. Were these the same peasants being starved to death and sent east by the trainload? — Michael Z. 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Vernalization (using exposure to cold as a way to hasten seeds' sprouting and flowering) is a real behavior seen in many plants, and one that has great practical importance for increasing the yield of crops that show this behavior. Lysenko made a real contribution to the science of vernalization, a word invented to translate "jarovization", which was the word he coined for it. [1] His mistaken belief that a vernalized state was hereditable is part of the story, but it is not the entire story of his connection with vernalization. Sharktopus talk 16:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Which fair use policy that applies to text are you referring to? Usually a paragraph from a long work is not excessive for fair use, and I thought your original quotes added more to the article. But I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies on quotes.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The article's state is unacceptable because it only insults and says negative things about Lysenko. There is a need for objectivity. A scholarly article summarizes some of Lysenko's achievements [2]
The article gives the impression that it happened in 1964-1965, but according to Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science, "In 1954 Lysenko was severely rebuked in a speech of Khrushchev's and later by several official party organs. He was branded a 'scientific monopolist' and 'academic schemer' who stifled all theories opposed to his own. He was accused of failing to make practical contributions to Soviet agriculture. ...in 1956 he resigned as head of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences." -- AnonMoos ( talk) 11:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
“In the beginning when working at the university” (sic). As far as I know, Lysenko took evening courses in agronomy and worked in agricultural institutions, never at university level. -- Dominique Meeùs ( talk) 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why use twelve letters when three will do?
Surely "As a student Lysenko found himself interested in agriculture" should be "As a student Lysenko was interested in agriculture".
Anyway, to say "found himself" could have - how can I put it? - other meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.150.62 ( talk) 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh no, another bloated phrase, with the wrong punctuation added in this time.
"Other investigations Lysenko found himself curious with, was the effect of heat on plant growth." should read "Lysenko also investigated the effect of heat on plant growth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.150.62 ( talk) 13:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The 'Lysenko's genetic theory' segment states that "Lysenko did not believe that genes or DNA existed, and only spoke about them to say that they did not exist. He instead believed that any body, once alive, obtained heredity. That meant that the entirety of the body was able to pass on the hereditary information of that organism, and was not dependent on a special element such as DNA or genes.[6] That puzzled biologists at that time because it went against all established notions of heredity and inheritance. It also contradicted the Mendelian principles that most biologists had been using to base their ideas on.[10] Most scientists believed that Lysenko's ideas were not credible, because they did not truly explain the mechanisms of inheritance. Many scientists and history of science writers believe that his beliefs are pseudo-scientific, and have little relationship to genetics."
Lysenko however did believe in both genes and DNA and spoke of their existence:
Thus experiments in vegetative hybridisation provide unmistakable proof that any particle of a living body, even the juices exchanged between scion and stock, possesses hereditary qualities. Does this detract from the role of the chromosomes? Not in the least, Is heredity transmitted through the chromosomes in the sexual process? Of course it is.
We recognise the chromosomes. We do not deny their presence. But we do not recognise the chromosome theory of heredity. We do not recognise Mendelism-Morganism. [1]
By mentioning Mendelism-Morganism, he was talking about the trend in biology that suggested inheritance of acquired characteristics was not at all possible. He framed the debate like this:
We, the representatives of the Soviet Michurin trend, contend that inheritance of characters acquired by plants and animals in the process of their development is possible and necessary. Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin mastered these possibilities in his experiments and practical activities. The most important point is that Michurin's teaching, expounded in his works, shows every biologist the way to regulating the nature of vegetable and animal organisms, the way of altering it in a direction required for practical purposes by regulating the conditions of life, i.e., by physiological means.
A sharp controversy, which has divided biologists into two irreconcilable camps, has thus flared up over the old question: is it possible for features and characteristics acquired by vegetable and animal organisms in the course of their life to be inherited? In other words, whether qualitative variations of the nature of vegetable and animal organisms depend on the conditions of life which act upon the living body, upon the organism.
The Michurin teaching, which is in essence materialist and dialectical, proves by facts that such dependence does exist.
The Mendel-Morgan teaching, which in essence is metaphysical and idealist, denies the existence of such dependence, though it can cite no evidence to prove its point.
This being his theory and all I think it makes sense to use some of the original source material and probably mention that denying that the genes exist is a common misconception.-- Hnhkqt ( talk) 20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Trofim Lysenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted a series of edits that inserted a substantial amount of content without any sources. The content was talk-like commentary that seemed original research. The article already needs substantial improvement in it's sourcing. Much of the content tagged citation needed could probably be sourced from the Further reading. MrBill3 ( talk) 07:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is filled with biased claims that aren't backed by any citations.
"following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s"
The famines weren't cause by the collectivization, famines occurred since the time of the Russian Empire whenever weather conditions were bad. Collectivization took place in the 30s, after which there were no more famines until the World War 2 famine and the famines that followed the collapse of the USSR. There were other causes too, like kulak sabotage. All of these things are a matter of historical record, yet in this article it is claimed that the famines resulted from "forced" collectivization.
"The Soviet's collectivist reforms forced the confiscation of agricultural landholdings from peasant farmers and heavily damaged the country's overall food production, and the dispossessed peasant farmers posed new problems for the regime"
Again, pure propaganda with no citations provided. You can check the birth rates and as well as the documented statistics of calorie intake and the quality of life before and after collectivization, you will clearly see that collectivization put an end to famines that were a common occurrence in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union before collectivization.
"Many had abandoned the farms altogether; many more waged resistance to collectivization by poor work quality and pilfering. The dislocated and disenchanted peasant farmers were a major political concern to the USSR's leadership"
As a citation here, pages 5 and 6 of "Stalin's Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization" are provided. The book itself however can only be described as an "opinion piece", since none of the claims within are backed by any citation to historical records whatsoever.
"as Stalin wanted to appear to stand with the proletariat"
Again, blatant bias.
"Due to close partnership between Stalin and Lysenko, Lysenko acquired an influence over genetics in the Soviet Union during the early and mid twentieth century"
Again, no citation for these claims is given. While Stalin has been observed to have applauded after one of Lysenko's speeches, that is all I could find that would dictate Stalin personally had any give-and-take with Lysenko.
"the logic was that if people are able to inherit the acquired characteristics, it could be possible to create a better society. This led the leaders of the Soviet Union to hope that peasants could be turned into exceptional citizens. However, this was never one of Lysenko's intentions; he strongly opposed genetic engineering of humans and the eugenics movement"
The Soviet leadership was never pro-eugenics, in fact eugenics were a big part as to how and why Lysenko managed to gain so much influence, as genetics at the time were used in the west to justify racist pseudoscience and were hence viewed as reactionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.189.163 ( talk) 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Article states:
"Another area Lysenko found himself interested in was the effect of heat on plant growth. He believed that every plant needed a determinate amount of heat throughout its lifetime. He attempted to correlate the time and the amount of heat required by a particular plant to go through various phases of development."
This is exactly how plants (and exothermic animals) actually grow and develop. When I worked in ag research, we used "degree days" (monitor temps over time, then integrate) to predict important stages in crop/pest development. This is extremely basic stuff, and the entire section needs to be removed. It's embarrassing, to be honest. 2600:1700:6A80:BC30:B94A:A999:5B26:FF97 ( talk) 05:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Alex Newton
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Since when does he have a different first name? The article was moved from "Trofim Lysenko" to "Trokhym Lysenko" and all the instances changed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I removed a lot of the preexisting text because much of it was suspect if not just wrong (i.e. the notion that after WWII Stalin rejected "science" as a whole -- that is pure nonsense despite his presumptuous leaning in on certain scientific questions, anyway Lysenkoism is BEFORE WWII anyway so it's hardly the way to start out a "Biography" section, is it?). As it was the only facts about Trofim Lysenko's life were scattershot and potentially quite false. Maybe I'll get time to add in some actual facts later but we'll see. Until then it is a biostub in my opinion. What this article should have:
Most of these are pretty straight questions (many of the print sources in Lysenkoism cover this). As it stands though the article was more likely to misinform than to inform. -- Fastfission 06:06, 12 October 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone else Google:doi:10.1038/35088598 or is it just because I'm at uni? Dunc_Harris| ☺ 13:38, 12 October 2004 (UTC)
Wasn't Andrei Sakharov also crucial in discrediting Lysenko? I remember there was quite a lot about that in his Memoirs, which I unfortunately don't have handy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joke137 ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
There was a recent BBC biography of SF author John Wyndham in which it was presented as fact that Lysenko "Invented" the nectarine through experiments involving radiation. Presumably this is untrue! Presumably, also, it is a myth which has legs, in order to fool the researchers for a BBC TV program (or am I being naieve?) - it might be worth mentioning. 62.69.54.97 20:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Andy Jones
The two articles are extremely heavily overlap. There is almost nothing to say in Lysenko's bio but about his Lysenkoism. mikka (t) 01:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The answer here is that the bio needs to be more solidly rooted in chronology, and while it should make regular note of Lysenkoism it shouldn't try to lay out precisely what it means. Alternatively, we can merge. We're getting overlap because the people writing each article weren't looking at the other. Fearwig 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Lysenko was a scientist with a practical mind. Types of grain developed by him and his team are still in use in Russia and other former soviet republics.
If you read this article attentively you notice that there is no any proof given for any accusations against Lysenko. The only political propaganda. No documents, no citation of people in this field. He is made monster just for his eagerness to feed starving nation. He was not interested in pure truth maybe, he was interested to invent grains with more yield to feed people.
Very monstrous indeed. -- Zha 10:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
While the article isn't "complete bs" (see above), I have to say it doesn't come across as purely objective. Lysenko's science has been debunked by modern understanding (and indeed contemporary understanding), but sentences like--
"Lysenko's 'science' was practically nonexistent. When he had any clearly formed theories, they were generally a mishmash of Lamarckism and various confused forms of Darwinism"
--really ruin the encyclopedic tone. It's also a generalization and in some ways a misrepresentation. Lysenko's following often accused the "menshevizing idealists" (his detractors) of harboring Darwinian ideals. Social Darwinism was considered the philosophy of the capitalist bourgeoisie, and by connection so were aspects of scientific Darwinism (note the overlap between social philosophy and science, really interesting stuff in the context of communist theory). Another problem with this article is that a lot of the contemporary critics of Lysenko had been personally affected by his personality cult, many had seen friends committed or imprisoned. Medvedev is a prime example. While it's only logical to note the inconsistencies in Lysenko's methods, there is a lot of hearsay here, and the controversy was really heated at the time, some of it too much so to be reliably citable. Having written some historiographical criticisms on Medvedev, I can tell you there's a lot in The Rise and Fall to be doubted. Because of that, I think the article needs to be a little clearer in terms of sourcing statements. You can say that he has been accused of falsifying results, for instance, but you shouldn't just say he falsified results. Fearwig 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The judgemental tone needs to be neutralized quite a bit. Statements like this in the article opening, "politician who made pretense of being a biologist" (Lysenko had a doctorate in agricultural science from the Kiev Agricultural Institute), or editorializing like "typical peasant "miracle" of the early Soviet press", are not a npov voice. The article needs to better let the facts stand without editorializing. And opinions or judgements offered here need to be associated more directly to the source of those opinions, preferably with footnotes. Professor marginalia 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Really, it's hard to take the article seriously - or even want to read it - when it begins so tendentiously (and I think it needs to be re-written by a native speaker of English)
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Lysenko further impressed political officials with his success in motivating peasant farmers. ... Lysenko energized the enthusiasm of the peasants, and led them to feel they held an empowered role in the Soviet revolutionary experiment
This needs a bit of clarification. Were these the same peasants being starved to death and sent east by the trainload? — Michael Z. 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Vernalization (using exposure to cold as a way to hasten seeds' sprouting and flowering) is a real behavior seen in many plants, and one that has great practical importance for increasing the yield of crops that show this behavior. Lysenko made a real contribution to the science of vernalization, a word invented to translate "jarovization", which was the word he coined for it. [1] His mistaken belief that a vernalized state was hereditable is part of the story, but it is not the entire story of his connection with vernalization. Sharktopus talk 16:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Which fair use policy that applies to text are you referring to? Usually a paragraph from a long work is not excessive for fair use, and I thought your original quotes added more to the article. But I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies on quotes.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The article's state is unacceptable because it only insults and says negative things about Lysenko. There is a need for objectivity. A scholarly article summarizes some of Lysenko's achievements [2]
The article gives the impression that it happened in 1964-1965, but according to Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science, "In 1954 Lysenko was severely rebuked in a speech of Khrushchev's and later by several official party organs. He was branded a 'scientific monopolist' and 'academic schemer' who stifled all theories opposed to his own. He was accused of failing to make practical contributions to Soviet agriculture. ...in 1956 he resigned as head of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences." -- AnonMoos ( talk) 11:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
“In the beginning when working at the university” (sic). As far as I know, Lysenko took evening courses in agronomy and worked in agricultural institutions, never at university level. -- Dominique Meeùs ( talk) 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why use twelve letters when three will do?
Surely "As a student Lysenko found himself interested in agriculture" should be "As a student Lysenko was interested in agriculture".
Anyway, to say "found himself" could have - how can I put it? - other meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.150.62 ( talk) 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh no, another bloated phrase, with the wrong punctuation added in this time.
"Other investigations Lysenko found himself curious with, was the effect of heat on plant growth." should read "Lysenko also investigated the effect of heat on plant growth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.150.62 ( talk) 13:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The 'Lysenko's genetic theory' segment states that "Lysenko did not believe that genes or DNA existed, and only spoke about them to say that they did not exist. He instead believed that any body, once alive, obtained heredity. That meant that the entirety of the body was able to pass on the hereditary information of that organism, and was not dependent on a special element such as DNA or genes.[6] That puzzled biologists at that time because it went against all established notions of heredity and inheritance. It also contradicted the Mendelian principles that most biologists had been using to base their ideas on.[10] Most scientists believed that Lysenko's ideas were not credible, because they did not truly explain the mechanisms of inheritance. Many scientists and history of science writers believe that his beliefs are pseudo-scientific, and have little relationship to genetics."
Lysenko however did believe in both genes and DNA and spoke of their existence:
Thus experiments in vegetative hybridisation provide unmistakable proof that any particle of a living body, even the juices exchanged between scion and stock, possesses hereditary qualities. Does this detract from the role of the chromosomes? Not in the least, Is heredity transmitted through the chromosomes in the sexual process? Of course it is.
We recognise the chromosomes. We do not deny their presence. But we do not recognise the chromosome theory of heredity. We do not recognise Mendelism-Morganism. [1]
By mentioning Mendelism-Morganism, he was talking about the trend in biology that suggested inheritance of acquired characteristics was not at all possible. He framed the debate like this:
We, the representatives of the Soviet Michurin trend, contend that inheritance of characters acquired by plants and animals in the process of their development is possible and necessary. Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin mastered these possibilities in his experiments and practical activities. The most important point is that Michurin's teaching, expounded in his works, shows every biologist the way to regulating the nature of vegetable and animal organisms, the way of altering it in a direction required for practical purposes by regulating the conditions of life, i.e., by physiological means.
A sharp controversy, which has divided biologists into two irreconcilable camps, has thus flared up over the old question: is it possible for features and characteristics acquired by vegetable and animal organisms in the course of their life to be inherited? In other words, whether qualitative variations of the nature of vegetable and animal organisms depend on the conditions of life which act upon the living body, upon the organism.
The Michurin teaching, which is in essence materialist and dialectical, proves by facts that such dependence does exist.
The Mendel-Morgan teaching, which in essence is metaphysical and idealist, denies the existence of such dependence, though it can cite no evidence to prove its point.
This being his theory and all I think it makes sense to use some of the original source material and probably mention that denying that the genes exist is a common misconception.-- Hnhkqt ( talk) 20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Trofim Lysenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I reverted a series of edits that inserted a substantial amount of content without any sources. The content was talk-like commentary that seemed original research. The article already needs substantial improvement in it's sourcing. Much of the content tagged citation needed could probably be sourced from the Further reading. MrBill3 ( talk) 07:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is filled with biased claims that aren't backed by any citations.
"following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s"
The famines weren't cause by the collectivization, famines occurred since the time of the Russian Empire whenever weather conditions were bad. Collectivization took place in the 30s, after which there were no more famines until the World War 2 famine and the famines that followed the collapse of the USSR. There were other causes too, like kulak sabotage. All of these things are a matter of historical record, yet in this article it is claimed that the famines resulted from "forced" collectivization.
"The Soviet's collectivist reforms forced the confiscation of agricultural landholdings from peasant farmers and heavily damaged the country's overall food production, and the dispossessed peasant farmers posed new problems for the regime"
Again, pure propaganda with no citations provided. You can check the birth rates and as well as the documented statistics of calorie intake and the quality of life before and after collectivization, you will clearly see that collectivization put an end to famines that were a common occurrence in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union before collectivization.
"Many had abandoned the farms altogether; many more waged resistance to collectivization by poor work quality and pilfering. The dislocated and disenchanted peasant farmers were a major political concern to the USSR's leadership"
As a citation here, pages 5 and 6 of "Stalin's Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization" are provided. The book itself however can only be described as an "opinion piece", since none of the claims within are backed by any citation to historical records whatsoever.
"as Stalin wanted to appear to stand with the proletariat"
Again, blatant bias.
"Due to close partnership between Stalin and Lysenko, Lysenko acquired an influence over genetics in the Soviet Union during the early and mid twentieth century"
Again, no citation for these claims is given. While Stalin has been observed to have applauded after one of Lysenko's speeches, that is all I could find that would dictate Stalin personally had any give-and-take with Lysenko.
"the logic was that if people are able to inherit the acquired characteristics, it could be possible to create a better society. This led the leaders of the Soviet Union to hope that peasants could be turned into exceptional citizens. However, this was never one of Lysenko's intentions; he strongly opposed genetic engineering of humans and the eugenics movement"
The Soviet leadership was never pro-eugenics, in fact eugenics were a big part as to how and why Lysenko managed to gain so much influence, as genetics at the time were used in the west to justify racist pseudoscience and were hence viewed as reactionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.189.163 ( talk) 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
References
Article states:
"Another area Lysenko found himself interested in was the effect of heat on plant growth. He believed that every plant needed a determinate amount of heat throughout its lifetime. He attempted to correlate the time and the amount of heat required by a particular plant to go through various phases of development."
This is exactly how plants (and exothermic animals) actually grow and develop. When I worked in ag research, we used "degree days" (monitor temps over time, then integrate) to predict important stages in crop/pest development. This is extremely basic stuff, and the entire section needs to be removed. It's embarrassing, to be honest. 2600:1700:6A80:BC30:B94A:A999:5B26:FF97 ( talk) 05:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Alex Newton
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Since when does he have a different first name? The article was moved from "Trofim Lysenko" to "Trokhym Lysenko" and all the instances changed. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)