Talk:Trofim Lysenko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Russia Portal
Trofim Lysenko is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
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.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

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)

[edit] Old talk

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:

  • Where/when was he born?
  • Where did he go to school? How did he get involved in agriculture?
  • When did he get involved in politics? How?
  • The ups and downs of his political career/influence/Lysenkoism.
  • After Khruschev rejects Lysenkoism, what happens to Lysenko?
  • Where/when did he die?

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 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, I edited it to more or less my satisfaction. Could still use a lot of biographical facts but I'm happier with this as a basic article than what was there before. --Fastfission 15:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] can you see this paper?

Can anyone else Google:doi:10.1038/35088598 or is it just because I'm at uni? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sakharov

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.

If I remember -- and I likely don't -- I think he was one of many Soviet scientists who started to openly attack Lysenko in the early 1960s. I can double-check that though. --Fastfission 22:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, I added it in because it seems important. It occupies quite a bit of Sakharov's Memoirs, although I don't know the context that well. --Joke137 18:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I could've sworn there was something about it in Sakharov Speaks, but that's out of print now and I don't know what I did with my copy. The subject of the book was the importance of intellectual freedom in science, so I suspect that was it. But yes, I believe Sakharov did at least say he was influential in the downfall of Lysenko. Fearwig 19:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nectarines...

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

Hmm, probably not, see nectarine. We have higher standards than the BBC, er... Dunc|☺ 20:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, BBC might be referring to newspaper reports or something similar from the period. The problem is that these were bogus propaganda, perpetuated by popular enthusiasm. For a few years, people would have told you Lysenko had invented the cabbage and the reindeer, too. Fearwig 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

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)

  • I don't know... they aren't exactly the same thing though this is a lot of overlap. Hmm. Let me think about this a little. --Fastfission 01:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • At least a very clear cut must be done. mikka (t) 02:05, 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)

[edit] This article is complete bs

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.

Lysenko developed those grains like Russians invented the lightbulb. Positive views of Lysenko's work are the perpetuation of folk myths. His theories were impracticable, his methods were unscientific, and his results were inconsistent and (reportedly) often forged. Fearwig 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The name Lysenko and "scientist" don't belong in the same sentence. His tenure was a terrible setback for decades of science, and proof that political force and lack of education can never displace true science. The Stalinist notion that anyone in a position of power is some sort of "genius" is a naive and pernicious one, soundly put to rest by history.Landroo 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Matter of fact is, Lysenko did develop grains that are still in use in Russia and other formerly soviet countries. The reasons for him getting slandered are understandable if one ventures into history of Soviet sciense... PS> Light bulb was a cooperation between several Russian and American scientists... With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Objectivity or POV from sources?

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)

I'm not sure I see exactly what you are disputing about the sentence, other than its tone? Much of the article is consistent with the work done by people like Joravsky and Graham, which is still regarded as historiographically rigorous to my knowledge. Anyway I'm happy to go over it carefully when I get the time and try and source anything specifically as needed. --Fastfission 21:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Tone is the main issue. I think that ideally it shouldn't sound quite so excited about pointing his pseudoscience--it should still state that it was pseudoscience, but I think the phrasing (as in the sentence above) is occasionally really unencyclopedic. Fearwig 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's valid. Though in the case of Lysenko, I think the sentence is pretty accurate (as I understand it, much of it was nothing more than an attack against others, in the same way that Deutsche Physik did not have a coherent scientific theory itself and was simply oppositional in its activities), but if you want to tone things down, you are more than welcome to. --Fastfission 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll give it a shot in a few days, then. But it should be said that while you could say there was no "science" (being that the methods were not scientific), there was certainly a consistent Lysenkoite dogma (which was dressed with mostly inaccurate scientific theory). From everything I've read (and this is interpretive), I'd say that it was less a reactionary argument meant to attack individuals than it was the result of the mistaken notion that nature had to conform with the philosophies of Marxism. Stalin really seemed to think people could make things happen in science by believing them and working endlessly toward them--I think that to him, scientists made discoveries, and didn't just discover them, if you see what I mean. That's not to say people weren't attacked, because they were--but it was for their opposition to Lysenkoism, which in turn betrayed what was perceived as an opposition to the communist spirit as a whole. But yeah, I think that Lysenko and at least a couple of his followers really believed in his new science, at least for the first years of his popularity. It's a great topic to study, if only because there are so many gray areas. Fearwig 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of it, from Joravsky and Graham in particular, is that most of the ideology was just dressing for political maneuvering within Soviet scientific and party ranks, and had little to do with any genuine philosophical interests, at least not on behalf of the people who carried out these things. Ideology in the years under the Stalin had more to do with the whims of Stalin and the politics of the time than it did rigorous philosophy. (Which is not to say there weren't many scientists and philosophers who did take dialectical materialism seriously as a philosophy of nature, but is more to say that to blame dialectical materialism for Lysenkoism seems false.) And Lysenkoism consumed not only those who attacked it, but those who would defend anything else as well, as I understand it, as well as anyone who would stand in the way of the Lysenkoists in any form. In any case, feel free to make your edits, but source them where you can, and I'll let you know if there's anything that looks strange to me. --Fastfission 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis, but not with the way in which it made its way to the page. I'll edit it and we can discuss the changes. I think that will be the best way to reach a consensus. I agree that politics were the main motivation at work here, but in being encyclopedic I think it best to outline the professed Lysenko ideology and then to make note of the analysis you just laid out, rather than giving it full credence. I also find (and this is a personal analysis, not going into the article) that the line between stated belief and true belief is so difficult to determine in analyzing the early Soviet period (and Stalin in particular) because the line was, for the people involved, very blurry. I think the adage that if you repeat something enough times and are forced to defend it you inevitably come to believe it somewhat applies to this period more than anywhere else in recent history, though it tends to apply in societies with arbitrary governments in general. I think that Stalin was attracted to this philosophy because it rang true with his own. I find it interesting that modern historians are taking a more cynical approach to the subject, and I look forward to reading some of the sources here. Fearwig 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC) On another point, did your sources outline the specific political motives that might have been involved, that is, those that would most benefit Stalin in particular (since Lysenko's are more obvious)? I'd be interested to know whether the Lysenko cult advantaged Stalin by removing anyone particularly oppositional from their position. Without such, I personally question whether he himself had political motives for plucking Lysenko from obscurity (aside from the public moral benefit of showing that Soviet culture was on the cutting edge, even through falsification, which was surely on the table if not a primary goal). This bit is more a matter of personal curiosity than relevant to my possible edits. Fearwig 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

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)

[edit] poor opening paragraph

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)

I've made some improvements. I agree with you. This is supposed to be an informative encyclopedic article, not a judgment. The rest of the article needs further work also.Professor marginalia 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enthusiastic peasants

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. 2007-07-31 15:30 Z

I deleted the whole as unreferenced. BTW no need to be ironic. Vast majority was not sent anywhere. It may be a surprize for you, but vast majority of simple folk in Russia loved Stalin dearly. `'Míkka 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not surprised. I was just unimpressed that the way it was written, one could easily infer that the majority of peasant farmers in the Soviet Union were enthusiastic about their empowerment in the revolutionary experiment. —Michael Z. 2007-07-31 19:01 Z
I don't see how you can reasonably infer all that from this statement. This simply says that some peasants were motivated by being given a role that made them feel they were participants in the revolutionary process. Perhaps you have come to believe that no one at all in the countryside of Russia was actively interested in the purported goals of the revolution; if so, you are incorrect. Your facetious nonsense above indicates to me that you are dissatisfied primarily with the article's failure to conform to your own outright bias. Fearwig 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It says "the peasants", not "some peasants". The implication is quite clear, and quite incorrect. And incidentally, not just about Russia.
Let's just discuss the text of the article rather than speculating about what I believe. —Michael Z. 2007-08-06 23:13 Z
I missed this discussion when it was fact tagged. I have sourced it, and tried to clarify the issue. It speaks to why Lysenko may have found early favor with Soviet leadership, and the case made in these references is that he was seen to be a politically useful figure who could reengage peasants balking at the reforms. Soviet officials seemed to hold this belief that the way to grow a lot of food was simply to supplant bourgeoisie officials with proletariat, and replace with political and ideological "purity" all preexisting scientific agricultural theory.Professor marginalia 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg

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)