Talk:RATAN-600

BTA-6: "plagued by technical problems" or "dogged by technical problems"?

We are discussing this edit which partially reverts its predecessor. Relocated from a personal talk page to solicit more opinions.

Hi. Regarding "RATAN-600", thanks for your note, but please consider that in English "dogged" is an adjective rather than a verb. The verb "plagued" means "caused continual distress or problems to". Patrickwooldridge (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Patrickwooldridge: Er, "dog" is a verb. There are two English words spelled "dogged", with similar etymology, but are heteronyms with different pronounciations. The adjective pronounced "dog-ed" /ˈdɔɡɪd/, meaning to perform an action doggedly, with notable persistence. Then there's the verb "to dog", with inflected forms "dogging" and "dogged", the latter pronounced "dog-d" /dɔɡd/. It is very similar in meaning to "to hound/hounding/hounded" or "to pursue/pursuing/pursued", but I see it used more with metaphorical rather than literal pursuers. I am hounded by paraazzi, but dogged by doubts and fears.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dogged+by+controversy%22 is a common phrase with 50,000 uses.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dog (scroll down for verb form):

1. to hunt, track, or follow like a hound <I dogged them all the way.>
2. pester
3. to cause problems for <Injuries dogged the team.>

It's that last usage that I was trying to invoke. I was trying to avoid the imiplication in "plagued" of "bedridden" or "hospitalized", a near-complete shutdown. "Dogged" is a persistent annoying hindrance that is short of that level.

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dog: (scroll down for verb form)

1. Follow (someone) closely and persistently: photographers seemed to dog her every step.
   • When you have a leader of his passion and effectiveness, you have a media that's very much tracking him and dogging him and trying to find what they can about him.
   • He laughs about how the police are still—and probably forever—on his tail, even dogging him on his recent US book tour.
   • Since Sally was the only member of the group who would acknowledge Yap's existence, the little gnome dogged her every step, chattering excitedly.
   1. (Of a problem) cause continual trouble for: the twenty-nine-year-old has constantly been dogged by controversy
      • For the last 5-1/2 years this process has been dogged by problem after problem.
      • The school—which has a police officer stationed on site—has been on special measures for five years and has been dogged by problems.
      • The system has been dogged with problems since it came on line in 1999.

Synonyms: pursue, follow, stalk, track, trail, shadow, hound; plague, beset, bedevil, assail, beleaguer, blight, trouble, torment, haunt, (informal) tail

Other links: http://www.freethesaurus.com/dogged http://www.freethesaurus.com/dogging

71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(P.S. Feel free to move this whole discussion to Talk:RATAN-600 if you like.)

You are correct: "dogged" can be a verb, but this is an unusual/secondary use of the word (at least in American English), and my edits are generally purposed toward making articles easier for the reader to understand. I have expressed my feelings and understanding here in your talk page because I know it is a matter of style, and you had previous edits. If you have considered both "dogged" and "plagued" and you feel that "dogged" is the more accurate/understandable term, I will not object, although it still seems to me that "plagued" would be the preferable term. Thanks for your many contributions. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Patrickwooldridge: Thanks for the discussion!

I know it's a less common word, but I didn't think it was that uncommon. "Dogged by" shows 519k hits on google, including a NYT headline from just last week: Malaysia’s Leader, Dogged by a Billion-Dollar Scandal, Proves Untouchable. The main thing, as I said in my original partial-revert edit, is that of the two terms, "plagued" puts more emphasis on severity, while "dogged" puts more on persistence.

E.g. from https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/dog_2

1. [often passive] to cause trouble for someone over a long period of time

He has been dogged by persistent back problems.

These rumors had dogged the president for years.

(Amusingy, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dogged is defining the adjective form, but three of the four example sentences show the verb form!)

Anyway, speaking of preference, there are three levels at which to discuss it and I'd like to be sure we're on the same one:

1. The differing connotations of the two terms. This is very much a "how I've seen them used" thing, so is itself subject to debate.
2. Which connotation is wanted in the article. Perhaps you think BTA-6's problems warrant the stronger term "plagued"?
3. The greater familiarity of "plagued" overrides the greater precision of "dogged".

You're primarily making point 3, correct? Certainly, "plagued by"'s 7740k hits beats 519k. As it's a matter of editorial judgement, I'd be happy to ask for a WP:3O on the matter. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

An interesting analysis. I took some time to contemplate it; thanks. I seem to have a bit of Asperger's and tend to value definition and mistrust connotation. Also I have travelled enough to know that connotation is often contextual to culture.

1. When I examine my personal response to both terms, "plagued" does seem more severe to me than "dogged"
2. I looked into it and the 'scope has had a long sequence of serious problems over several decades; it has never met its design criteria
3. Here instead of "familiarity" I would like to address "comprehension": a) The reader knows both words and easily determines that "dogged" is being used as a verb; b) The reader knows both words but gets stuck with the unfamiliar use of "dogged" (this was my case when I read the sentence); c) The reader has a smaller vocabulary and is only familiar with one of the terms; d) The reader is not immediately familiar with either of the words. So as I see it we would like the optimal balance of comprehension and accuracy/precision, weighting comprehension toward those with more limited vocabularies and precision toward those with more extensive vocabularies (in order to make it easy to read and understand). In cases a) & b) the choice becomes a subjective evaluation as to whether the stronger term is warranted. I personally would not want any of the scientists or engineers to feel insulted (although I would not mind if the party apparatchiki who were undoubtedly the cause of the mirror problems were insulted). In cases c) & d) we should consider not only familiarity, but also what they will find if they do a quick definition search.

Considering all these factors, I guess I still come down in favor of "plagued", but I feel I have well and thoroughly researched this and made my case, so I leave it in your capable hands. I look forward to collaborating with you down the road. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

H'm... Since we've both made our points, and this is a fuzzy "feel" thing about language usage, I'll ask for a wp:third opinion to break the tie. Relocated from my talk page to here. And yes, the fact that "dogged by" seems politer has influenced my thinking. We could always sidestep the issue by rephrasing (e.g. "The RATAN-600 has not suffered from the persistent technical problems of the neighbouring BTA-6"), but I admit curiosity as to what others think. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion for rephrasing seems good. Or, what about trying a less metaphorical term? Perhaps "troubled"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I offer a more radical solution? Perhaps remove that sentence altogether? BTA-6's problems are already covered in its own article. The only purpose of that sentence here is to say that RATAN has been operating without hiccups. We can be direct about it and just say it, no need for the roundabout comparison Acer (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Thanks for your comments. I'll wait a while to collect more opinions and then pick something.

@Acer: Indeed, it's not strictly necessary to mention BTA-6 at all, but I think having the contrast make the presentation more natural. It justifies the existence of the statement, and it might be useful to people who have heard of problems at the Special Astrophysical Observatory. Both instruments were built so large for cold war prestige purposes, and it seems worth mentioning very briefly that this one wasn't screwed up.

I generally like the paragraph, which is a useful summary of what RATAN-600 is used for and establishes its WP:notability. This makes me disinclined to rewrite it aggressively. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

"Plagued by technical issues" sounds better than "Dogged..." to my (American) ears for describing something that had a significant number of technical issues. However, I would suggest using "The RATAN-600 has not suffered from the persistent technical problems of the neighbouring BTA-6" (per 71.41.210.146) as it sounds best to me. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I just read the articles RATAN-600, BTA-6, and Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Science (sic) as well as their associated Talk pages. Then I read a few other scientific analyses of the problems, written by scientists who have had actual experience with the BTA-6 telescope.

1. There is quite a bit of duplication, particularly between the first and third articles
2. There is an impassioned defense of the BTA-6 in rough English in Talk:Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Science / NPOV
3. Our articles do not highlight the fact that BTA-6 had the largest optical aperture for almost 20 years, nor that the problems led to big breakthroughs in both single-mirror designs and the development of segmented mirrors

I project that it is worth our while to mention the problems and their genesis (e.g., cold war pressures, design issues, location, fabrication issues) in the context of how greatly subsequent designs have benefited from the experience gained with BTA-6. As to duplication and placement of info, I suggest the comprehensive info appear in the pages for the individual telescopes, with relatively simple summaries and links to these pages in the SAORAS page. If we agree to go this route, I can try to summarize the root causes of the BTA-6 problems and the wisdom gained in an inoffensive manner, but not right this moment. I'll think about it and check back in 48 hours. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)