Talk:Dissociated press

This article was nominated for deletion on April 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus/keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Note

Note: This is copy-and-pasted from the Jargon File v.4.4.7, though according to the Online Preface to the Jargon File, it is a public domain work. 64.82.252.2 14:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC) cut from article Rich Farmbrough 16:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Context

I know that emacs has a "dissociated press"-mode. Does this article explicitly describes it, or is dissociated press used as a general term? -- Yoghurt 14:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General term. E123 (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Note these two articles, with very similar names and overlapping topics: Disassociated_Press and Dissociated_press. Since the former is marked as an orphan perhaps they should be linked or merged? -- BananaSlug (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the similar names they are on quite distinct topics. I see no overlap except in the titles. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example section

The "Example" section was a straight copy from <http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/D/Dissociated-Press.html>. The copyright holder is Eric S. Raymond. Here [1] he explicitly states that copying is not permitted, but that linking is, so I have removed the copy from the article, and shall substitute a link. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errrrrr.... unlike ESR's other material, the Jargon File is in public domain. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, but this was not quoted from the Jargon File.~~ JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this looks exacly like this entry from the Jargon File, which is listed in the article as being from the Jargon File, and sourced as being from Jargon File. If my faulty memory is to be trusted, this is the same text that has been in the Jargon File since I first saw it circa 3.x. Am I missing something crucial here? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prompted by this question I have looked further into the matter. I understand "the Jargon File" as meaning the contents of the directory http://www.catb.org/jargon/. The link given was to a page in a subdirectory of http://www.catb.org/~esr, so I had taken it as being associated with, but not part of, the Jargon File. I have now discovered that the given link (http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/D/Dissociated-Press.html) is a synonym of http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/D/Dissociated-Press.html, which clearly is part of the jargon file. I have therefore restored the example to the article. Thanks to Wwwwolf for prompting me to look further, and apologies for having put them to the trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and one additional thought: I'm not reverting - instead of just copying the material, I think it'd be better if someone would create an original text example. All I'm saying is having an "example" section with just a link to an external resource is a little bit silly. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that it would be better to have an original example which could be quoted. Maybe sometime I'll even produce one, but don't hold your breath. Meanwhile I think the link is better than nothing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone still thinks an original example would be better, here's one using KJV as input with a context size of 8 characters:

Now the weight of thy land, which is the accursed them away as I was come, and let us lay aside even both to the porch of the law, even that which was evil is before the LORD's vengeance, thou seekest to go up to the ostrich?

Bo Lindbergh (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociative Identity Disorder

Considering that 1) none of the listed references contained the word "identity", and 2) the DSM didn't include the term "dissociative identity disorder" until its fourth edition in 1994 (22 years after the original HAKMEM description), I've reverted the first paragraph to refer to dissociation in general rather than DID in particular. Not to say that it's impossible that the algorithm was named in reference to DID in particular, just that it's improbable and unsourced. 98.35.165.93 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]