Talk:Theodosius Dobzhansky

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yzzysmith, BaileyHackler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Erikdo97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

If anyone knows the place name where Dobzhansky's ashes were scattered, please add this information to the article. It is significant because evolutionary biologists sometimes visit the place (I know from personal correspondence that Brian and Deborah Charlesworth have, (quoting BC) "inhaling thousands of molecules of the stuff"). - Samsara _contrib ^talk 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this issue is relevant to the article; Dobzhansky had been living in the States for five years before it started. I've deleted the sentence and associated reference. Tevildo (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The relevance of this event to his life has not been shown. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've posted a pair of videos to YouTube, which might be of interest in the External links section. The videos are parts I and II of a tribute to Dobzhanksy consisting of old home movies of him, including scenes of him collecting Drosophila at Mather, along with audio commentary from several of his students, including Wyatt Anderson, Bruce Wallace, Francisco J. Ayala, Lee Ehrman, and Jeff Powell. Links to the videos are here and here. Add them to the article if you see fit. Zé Ayala, May 7, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.255.222 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling us, and for checking here on the Talk page. The videos appear very relevant and useful. Can you tell us who made these videos, and who you believe owns their copyright? This is a question that people sometimes ask, and it's good to check it out when we can. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am the creator and copyright owner of this video. The home movies are all from my family's collection, and I received permission from each of the audio commentators to publicize their recordings. Zé Ayala, May 7, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.255.222 (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are also User:Pawntakesqueencheck? Better not keep restoring the link to the article; anti-spam bots have been told to watch out for YouTube. I am asking an experienced colleague if the link is acceptable; let's wait to hear what he says. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is me. The notice I received informing me of the automatic removal implied that the reason for it was that I wasn't a registered user, so I registered and reposted the links. I'm confused by the automatic removal: Wikipedia's policy on external links says there is no blanket ban on YouTube links. Pawntakesqueencheck (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

RE; http://www.youtube.com/user/pawntakesqueencheck,
Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Neutral and independent Wikipedia editors should decide whether to add it, however here are some additional rules:

• External links policy
  • Links normally to be avoided
  • Advertising and conflicts of interest
• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a memorial site
  • Wikipedia is not a repository for links

Wikipedia is not the place for tribute videos. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia or article itself. Yes, the internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content.--Hu12 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dobzhansky is remembered in Brazil, and perhaps his Brazilian contributions will be remembered in a later edition of this biography. His classic Amazon tree paper is:

G. A. Black, Th. Dobzhansky and C. Pavan. 1950. Some Attempts to Estimate Species Diversity and Population Density of Trees in Amazonian Forests. Botanical Gazette, Vol. 111, No. 4 pp. 413-425.

--Wloveral (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion. Are you able to give us a few sentences, in your words, of what the main contribution of this paper was? References are good, but article text is better. You may have noticed that Dobzhansky deserves a much better article than what we currently have! EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Theodosius Dobzhansky was also an eugenist. In fact, he was among the signatories of the eugenics manifesto in 1939.Agre22 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)agre22Reply

"He was a strong supportor[sic] of the Darwinian view of evolution." Is it necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.255.36 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not really, but given the controversy that existed amongst both contemporary and even subsequent Russian biologists regarding evolution it is worth pointing out that he is a Darwinian. Given that both his work and Morgan's heavily influenced the Neo-Darwinian paradigm that still pretty much stands to this day, a nod to Darwin really isn't out of place.

I was actually more concerned with the implicit notion of a belief in the Christian God being in conflict with a recognition of (neo-)Darwinian evolution. So I changed it. The notion of someone being a supported of evolution and their religious sensibilities ought not be linked with a "nevertheless". Unless the goal is to troll. I could see both New Atheist and Christian trolls using that sort of a formulation. Let's keep Wikipedia objective and not descend into some sort of a Conservopedia-style nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.53.121 (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although born in Nemirov in the western Ukraine of Imperial Russia, Dobzhansky (whose father was of Polish extraction; his mother was Russian or perhaps Polish as well) is not known to have spoken Ukrainian. He did speak and write in Russian (he also knew English, German, French, Spanish, and Portuguese), and was considered Russian by his contemporaries, historians, and himself, so his name should be transliterated in Russian rather than Ukrainian; perhaps some editor who knows Russian can do so. A strict transliteration from the Russian would give Dobrzhansky, a form Dobzhansky used occasionally early in his life. See the essays by Ford and Ayala cited in the external links. Also, he was widely known in the English speaking world as "Th. Dobzhansky"; I've never seen him referred to as "T.G. Dobzhansky" as the article asserts. If he has been called this, it is very much rarer than the "Th." form (which he himself used). MayerG (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This man was one of the Mount Rushmmore titans of modern biology, the modern synthesis: among a small handful of the most influential scientists in 20th century biology/population genetics/anthropology - yet probably because he wasn't scandalous and had few (or any?) enemies, he's given superficial, cursory coverage on wikipedia. That should give us pause...why Kent Hovind's life and views of evolution get more coverage than Dobzhansky's. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am not an editor but just to throw out a worthwhile addition, perhaps we could put something on his theory of post-zygotic isolation? At least to me, it seems to be one of his other "great" contributions besides the modern synthesis and was one of the first good models for speciation of distantly related species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.27.110 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, by making any edits here, you are an editor. While expansion would be nice, it must cite reliable sources, and avoid original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've also been editing the wikipedia entry on the Dobzansky-Muller Model. I agree that both Dobzhansky's, Muller's and possibly Bateson's pages need to mention this theory. The page for it was listed as the Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller Model when I found it. I almost think it should be changed to just Dobzhansky-Muller Model or a redirect should be made. Feel free to help out with this page. It was very poorly written when I found it. Dopeytaylor (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dobzhansky's religious views are notable and relevant here. Neither Mayr's view of religion nor Russian Orthodox doctrine is relevant here. The article isn't the proper venue to engage in some original research about whether or not Dobzhansky's personal religious views conform to Mayr's or the doctrine of his church. Please review original research policy. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Certainly, I am pointing out that there are conflicting opinions about Dobzhansky's beliefs in personal God. Why only one opinion should be presented? If Dobzhansky didn't believe in basic dogmas of the Orthodox Church, being a communicant would be sacrilegious. There is a clear contradiction in the text that I am trying to resolve it with additional published information from Mayr. I don't think Dobzhansky was a hypocrite.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.194.12 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 07:02, 10 November 2011.

Ok. The Mayr quote is very weak because Dobzhansky's merely mentioned in passing as an example, as one of many evolutionary scientists who believed in God. If you think there's confusion or contradictions over whether or not he really believed in a "personal god" we need better sources, which I will help look for. But the other edit regarding whether or not he was being "sacrilegious" is not allowed. Editors at wikipedia can't do this. To say anything about Dobzhansky's beliefs in the context of church doctrine you need a source that says it directly first-about Dobzhansky. You can't use a source that doesn't refer to Dobzhanksy directly to come to conclusions about what he may or may not have believed. You can read the policy here: WP:SYN. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The book Eminent lives in twentieth-century science & religion ed. Nicolaas A. Rupke covers Dobzhansky's religious views in some depth (starting about p 106) and simple labels don't seem to apply. Here's one quote:

Evolution, like everything in the world, is a manifestation of God's activity...I see no escape from thinking that God acts not in fits of miraculous interventions but in all significant and insignificant spectacular and humdrum events. Pantheism, you may say? I don't think so, but if so then there is this much truth in pantheism.

Dobzhanksy saw evolution as a feature of the "divine incarnation" of the universe, which he associated with his church's theology. Quoting the book, "In Eastern Orthodoxy the redemption of the cosmos involves its deification (theosis) by means of divine incarnation." Dobzhansky also described himself as a communicant of the church but "not in the full sense". There's much more. The section should flesh Dobzhanksy's views more as described in this book. Neither Ayala nor Mayr's quotes are that illuminating, it turns out. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

True, neither quote is adequate but only the first one was given wide circulation. Interestingly, Ayala doesn't discuss his personal beliefs as stated in wikipedia, but he makes pronouncements on Dobzhansky's beliefs. I ordered a book: "Th. Dobzhansky, The Biology of Ultimate Concern: Accepting Evolution and Believing in God. Part Two: Science and Religion" and will get back as soon as I read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.194.12 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

On this topic, what does "Dobzhansky himself spoke of God as creating through evolution, and considered himself a communicant of the Eastern Orthodox Church" even mean? It is pretty unambiguous: you either are receiving communion or you are not... --Pstanton (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The final paragraph reads "A great-grandson of Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky." This is not a grammatical sentence - it should begin with the words "He was" to make it a complete sentence. Rollo August (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Right. On that point, the Russian version of the article seems to say he's not a direct great-grandson, which is what another source points to, so I'll tweak the sentence. Robincantin (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a long-term edit war on this page. I too thought he was a Russian or/and American geneticist. However, according to EB [1], [2] he is a "Ukrainian-American geneticist and evolutionist". According to another, summary entry [3], he is a "Ukrainian-born U.S. geneticist and evolutionist". Can we follow sources, please? Perhaps one can find other sources, but the description in EB is a good indication how someone should be described in encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been as active lately because the ANI shitshow kinda killed my mood when it comes to Wikipedia, but since I have been involved in the rectification of this article for a while, and since we discussed it for a while over there, I believe I owe you a reply. I think the "Ukrainian", "Ukrainian-American" and "Ukrainian-born" descriptions were largely made after his death and, fundamentally, the death of the USSR, and do not correspond to the perception of his contemporaries or of Dobzhansky himself. Here are some sources referring to him as Russian, Russian-American or Russian-born:

Modern:

Oxford Reference (Russian-born)

PBS (Russian)

2018 academic article from a professor at the University of Californa (Russian-American)

Brazilian journal (Dobzhansky worked in Brazil where he was and remained influential) linked to a leading research foundation refers to him as Russian, Russian-born and Russian American

Contemporary to Dobzhansky:

Academic book (Native Russian who acquired American citizenship)

Academic paper (Russian-born)

Modern, but from contemporaries:

Book on Dobzhansky, modern-ish, where he is widely described as Russian, even by his daughter. Also note that page 70 of the book includes the comment that he was apparently rejected for a professorship at his alma mater because he did not show himself to be a Ukrainian nationalist, and after that he left for Petrograd. The Polish ethnicity of his father (as well as his Russian mother's relationship to Dostoevsky) are also pointed out.

Snippet from a book where a personal acquaintance of him refers to him as Russian throughout

The list is, of course, non-exhaustive. I was thinking of going back to the original? "Russian-American" phrasing, but on re-reading MOS:CONTEXTBIO I feel the current fits the mould slightly better. I am not against going back to Russian-American if you disagree with my assessment. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ukraine-born is by far the least biased way to go. Any English sources that may be saying that he is "Russian" are likely referring to him being at one time a subject of the Russian Empire. English language does not distinguish between Russian ethnicity and citizenship. Russian sources, on the other hand, clearly state his Ukrainian and Polish descent. Historiography is now a lot more aware of the colonial complexity then it used to. The trend is now clear to state that someone was born in Ukraine even if it was part of a different country at the time. Ilya Repin is a good example of that, even here on Wikipedia. He was "Ukrainian-born" but listed as a "Russian" painter in the sense that he was a subject of the Russian Empire. PhD Cambridge (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As Russian cultural appropriation came into spotlight particularly after the full scale invasion on Ukraine in 2022, I think it is appropriate to rethink the origins and the identity of Dobzhansky and not simply cite likely outdates sources. It is not a competition of who can amass more citations. Dobzhansky was born in the Russian Empire during the times when Ukrainian language was forbidden and higher education was only in Russian. He lived, studied, and worked in Ukraine, which, once again, was at that time occupied by the Russian Empire. He has Ukrainian and Polish roots. These are facts that need to be reflected in the article. I do not think it is necessary to define him in terms of being Ukrainian, American, or Russian, which is contentions, but his biography needs to reflect that what links him Ukraine and reflect his original in the most unbiased way. PhD Cambridge (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's good that you have decided to post, but talk pages are not for soapboxing or RGW. Sources are not outdated but you're welcome to criticise them. Ostalgia (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Calling Dobzhansky Russian is contentious and has no place in this article. We must report facts and not make judgements. My suggestion is that the "Russian and American" qualifiers are taken out altogether, as they are clearly problematic. We could follow the example from the Met in New York in writing about Illia Repin, for example: "Illia Repin (Ilia Efimovich Repin) Ukrainian, born Russian Empire. Repin was born in the Ukrainian town of Chuhuiv (Chuguev) when it was part of the Russian Empire. He went on to become a major progressive painter. In the early 1880s, he met Garshin, an acclaimed writer who shared his concern for contemporary political and social problems. Repin made several portraits in this decade of artists in his orbit in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The rich tonal contrasts and lush brushwork are indebted to art he saw while studying in Paris. Four years after this picture was painted, Garshin, scarred by the suicides of his father and brother and his own mental illness, threw himself down a stairwell and died". PhD Cambridge (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would like to involve a third party to resolve this issue, for example @MaryMO (AR), who has previously edited this article. In summary, in rethinking Russian colonial heritage in Ukraine, it is controversial calling Dobzhansky a Russian. By this logic anyone born in the Russian Empire would be Russian, which is nonsensical. He lived in the times when many in the West equated the Russian Empire, and later the Soviet Union, with Russia, which we are finally starting to understand to be an outcome of propaganda. According to Russia, its colonies simply could not be more advanced than the colonizer, hence everything of value and recognition had to be either banner or appropriated. I suggest that we simply state that Dobzhansky was born Ukraine when it was part of the Russian Empire to a family of Ukraine and Polish descent. Thank you. PhD Cambridge (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll ignor the bait about Repin and stick to this article. How is it contentious when a) the sources call him Russian, b) among the sources is his own daughter calling him Russian and quoting a colleague of his in the same vein ("Ernst Mayr wrote me recently saying that my father always considered himself a Russian" p. 28 of The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky), c) the sources calling him Russian are not Russian, and are from different parts of the globe and cover a wide timeframe and d) sources (once again, particularly Dobzhansky's daughter) point to his mother's side of the family being Russian (and descendents of Dostoevsky)? Are we seriously going to just throw everything, including a person's own claims, those of his family and his collaborators, just because you feel offended by the fact that he's listed as Russian?

This is not a contentious matter. Sources don't get any clearer than that, Wikipedia follows sources, not feelings, particularly when those feelings are completely detached from any material basis. What you're doing is not even WP:RGW, it's blatant PoV-pushing, perhaps well-meaning, but PoV-pushing nonetheless. I would suggest you desist, familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies, or at the very least familiarise yourself with the topics you're trying to write about on Wikipedia and sources pertaining to them. I'm sure you'll find plenty of mislabelled individuals. This is not one of them. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I will refrain from editing the article, at least for now, and I hope that User:Ostalgia will do the same. Let an unbiased third party settle this dispute. I have a PhD in genetics and respect sources, which means that we must be carefully in interpreting them. For historic reasons the term Russian has been liberally used to describe anyone from the Russian Empire and, later, the Soviet Union. It is likely that this is how it has been used in the literature you provided. However, there are other sources, including from Russia itself, that reference Dobzhansky's Ukrainian and Polish decent. I cited them in the article, but they have been deleted. Similarly, many prominent individuals, including Illia Repin, Sergei Prokofiev, Nikolai Gogol, Anton Chekhov, Kazimir Malevich, Sergei Korolev, to name a few, have been until recently considered Russian, but were, in fact, Ukrainian. Note that I am not insisting on calling Dobzhansky a Ukrainian geneticists. As a compromise, I am proposing to only state his Ukrainian and Polish decent and mention Ukraine, albeit when it was part of the Russian Empire, as his place of birth and early work. Calling him Russian would be misleading and perpetuating a long-standing historical bias. PhD Cambridge (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do not believe it would be possible for me to care any less about your PhD in genetics (or in anything else, for that matter), because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You can do whatever you want, I will continue to maintain the integrity of the article by sticking to what the sources say. Your position is like walking into someone's house, saying that it is actually your house, the owner having to bring documents to prove his ownership, and you choosing to ignore them and say "well, let's bring a third, uninvolved person to settle this dispute. Alternatively, as a compromise, you can give me the kitchen and the living room". There is no dispute to be had here. The fact that you continue to claim Dobzhansky is labelled Russian because of Russian appropriation, while his collaborators, his family and Dobzhansky himself claimed his nationality as Russian borders on the absurd.

As a final note, of the people you list, some are Ukrainian, some are most definitely not Ukrainian, and others were Ukrainian by ethnicity but considered themselves Russian through and through. What they all have in common, however, is that they're completely irrelevant to the article. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Zakharov, I.A. (2010). Theodosius Grigorievich Dobzhansky - 110 years since the birth (in Russian) (14-2 ed.). Vestnik VOGiS. pp. 213-221. - Захаров, И.А. (2010). Феодосий Григорьевич Добржанский — 110 лет со дня рождения (in Russian) (14-2 ed.). Вестник ВОГиС. pp. 213-221. Published in Moscow, Russia.

"Theodosius Grigorievich Dobzhansky was born in Ukraine, was educated in Kyiv" - "Феодосий Григорьевич Добржанский родился на Украине, получил образование в Киеве".

"Polish and Ukrainian roots merged in his pedigree" - "В его родословной слились польские и украинские корни". PhD Cambridge (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not every person born in the territory of present-day Ukraine is or was Ukrainian. We have his own daughter calling him Russian, pointing out that through his mother he was collaterally related to Dostoevsky and therefore also of partial Russian ancestry (something also noted in your source, by the way "Примечательным фактом является родство Ф.Г. Добржанского с великим русским писателем Ф.М. Достоевским"), his colleagues saying "he always considered himself a Russian", a biographer saying he was denied a position at St. Vladimir's because he did not show himself in favour of Ukrainian nationalism, but you want to turn him into a Ukrainian post mortem on account of your own feelings? That just doesn't float. Ostalgia (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dobzhansky may have been pro-empire and beyond doubt at some point a subject of the Russian Empire. However, the empire by definition consists of colonies, which, at that time, included Ukraine. In case of Dobzhansky, his background was Ukrainian and, just like Dostoevsky's, also Polish. Besides, Dobzhansky lived and studied in Ukrainian People's Republic between 1917 and 1921. PhD Cambridge (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is why RS describe his background in the manner they describe (see my comment just below). My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Once again, EB [4], [5] says he was a "Ukrainian-American geneticist and evolutionist". Oxford reference [6] says he was a "Russian-born US geneticist" (this is not the same as Russian geneticist), and so on. Hence I believe the current description should be fixed. However, I certainly will not edit war over this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply