Talk:Halloween documents

message: Suggest removing "alleged" since according to Raymond, MSFT has acknowledged documents were real.
:The above added in edit " M 04:15, 2002 Mar 15 . . 62.60.118.23 "
: I hope this is merely carelessness: the word of the recipient of the illegally released information is the only source cited for their authenticity.
: I believe they are authentic, but that is my PoV, and not verification.  If there is a verifiable admission of authenticity of a particular document, the removal of "alleged" from ref to that doc is justified by citing the source on that admission on this talk page.  
: If we don't have that for each document, the word "alleged" needs to appear, e.g. in a phrase like "some allegedly, and some admittedly, from MS" in the first 'graph.  And we would also need a section on "Authentication Issues".
: As i say, hopefully this info is at hand and merely needs to be added here; please bring it forward to forestall correction of the article. --Jerzy(t) 22:28, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
:I've put a  on the bit about MS admitting they're authentic.  I'd really like to see an independent reference here.  It definately needs a reference of some sort, as it is claimed as fact.
How about the New York Times? "Microsoft executives acknowledged on Monday that the document was authentic."
here: http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/biztech/articles/03memo.html
more press coverage: http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/links.html
:The set of documents exists and their provenance is confirmed, there are several decent references now cited so this ought to be taken as fact. Therefore the "so-called" in the first line is in violation of the neutrality rule as it clearly casts aspersions on the authenticity of the documents. In addition even if the material authenticity of these documents _were_ in doubt "so-called" would not be the correct tone to use in an encyclopedia entry, or indeed any scholarly work.  I am going to remove it. Roger.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.199.84 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity 

message: The Open Source Intiative has removed the Halloween documents by Eric S. Raymond.  At the same time, OSI has been in negociations with Microsoft.
Something fishy is going on here.
--Bushido Hacks 01:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the documents are being moved to ESR's personal site. Let's wait a bit before jumping on any conspiracy allegations, though. It's worth noting (as I tried to in this article) that several of the "documents" aren't Microsoft internal documents at all, but ESR editorials ... so it may just be that they're being moved to a more appropriate place, seeing as many open-source advocates don't feel like endorsing all of ESR's views .... --FOo 01:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Halloween Documents are GONE! 

message: For balance, this article should present some of the criticism of Raymond's documents.  For example, the authors of the email are low-level employees, and not software developers, so their opinions really don't carry the weight of corporate policy that Raymond implies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.41.40 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2006
: Written by program managers (not low-level employees) at the request of a senior vice-president for the attention of another senior vice president.  If Allchin didn't support the content of the memos, would Maritz have seen them?  AlistairMcMillan 22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incorrect.  A program manager is not a high-level employee position.  They are not a "manager" in the sense of a "development manager".  A PM has not other employee reporting to him.  That's pretty much the definition of a leaf-node employee.  So much for counter-balance.  DonPMitchell 09:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: It would seem to me that the documents reveal much more than Microsoft's argument with Open Source software. It has long been the stated management POV that Capitalism and Free Enterprise are synonomous. However unofficial the documents are, they indicate a keen sense of the difference, and illuminates older fights with Dr Dos and IBM.
While a Conservative POV would down play those differences, objectively these documents rank highly in illuminating that division. Dragonwlkr 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Implications 

message: The current article omits to mention one of the most important pieces of information: why the documents are labeled "The Halloween Documents." Without referring to any other sources, I can but assume that they were leaked on Halloween (i.e. October 31st)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.80.123.38 (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why "Halloween"?

message: How can someone who is not connected with Microsoft in any way get such important documents? --84.183.234.30 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where/how did he get the documents? 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support - common usage refers to these as simply "Halloween Documents", and while they present a critical view of Microsoft they do not all originate there.  81.110.111.164 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Halloween documents. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011607/6000/PX06501.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Halloween documents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070411041813/http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/0/6/a0628eee-0114-4444-9793-e52a92dc4cf4/GetTheFacts_ExecSummary_TCO.DOC to http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/0/6/a0628eee-0114-4444-9793-e52a92dc4cf4/getthefacts_execsummary_tco.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified