Talk:Bourgeois pseudoscience

Bad source on genetics
The cited article from Kautsky doesn't even mention "genetics" by name, and anyhow Kautsky wasn't a Soviet writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:c481:4640:a9d6:7a9d:f49c:ea97 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct, and I've removed the claim. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Article title/fate
While it is correct that many sciences were considered incompatible with Marxist ideology, the terms of condemnation differed, and "Bourgeois pseudoscience" was but one of them Other included "reactionary pseudoscience". There are some inaccuracies. For example Lysenko called Mendelian genetics "bourgeois invention" and proposed "Marxist genetics" (i.e., he was not attacking "genetics per se, but the concept of gene. I suggest to think of a better article title. Or maybe even merge it into a much better developed Repression of science in the Soviet Union altogether. - Altenmann >talk 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "For example Lysenko called Mendelian genetics "bourgeois invention" and proposed "Marxist genetics" (i.e., he was not attacking "genetics per se, but the concept of gene."


 * I had similar thoughts, but not much time to fix the article, hence my recent edits.
 * "Or maybe even merge it into a much better developed Repression of science in the Soviet Union altogether"


 * I was at first favorable to this idea, but this article already talks about the usage of the term outside the USSR, e.g. in the PRC, and it could surely be expanded to talk about other non-Soviet use even more.
 * However, I agree that something should be done about this article; it's not great for a number of reasons, some of which you have pointed out. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

cz:Buržoazní pavěda has examples from Czechoslovak SSR. - Altenmann >talk 22:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Eugenics
The dispute is baout the following text:
 * "Eugenics is a bourgeois pseudoscience",[5] "Weismannism-Morganism - bourgeois pseudoscience, designed to justify capitalism".[6] Today, most scholars agree in characterizing eugenics as rooted in pseudoscience,[7][8] albeit without the "bourgeois" qualifier.

Biohistorian15 wants to delete the last sentence. There is the dispute in the article history:
 * curprev 00:52, May 20, 2024‎ Biohistorian15 talk contribs‎ 4,682 bytes −1,032‎  Yeah, but this is an entry about the Soviet notion of "Bourgeois pseudoscience", not the validity of any of its components... Before we make normative statements, we might want to add proper citations elsewhere.
 * curprev 09:41, May 20, 2024‎ Altenmann talk contribs‎ 5,714 bytes +1,032‎  Reverted good faith edits by Biohistorian15 (talk): Validity of its components are part of thius subject. PLease continue discussion in talk page.

I fail go understand how "validity of any of its (BourPseu) components" (with proper references) cannot be discussed in the article about BourPseu. And how this is conditioned on "proper citations elsewhere". - Altenmann >talk 16:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)