Talk:Lysenkoism

message: 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:
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:
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: 
Lastly, but not least, some contemporary biologists, dealing not only with biology, but with the aspect of political persecution, which they dispute: 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: See WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are to be used with care. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent over-simplifications and caricatures on many indirect sources 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religiously? 

message: 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)
replies: text: WP:LEDECITE --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First section completely lacking citations