Talk:Defence-in-depth (Roman military)

critical disscussion reads like an essay written against the thesis. neutrality disputed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.106 (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this has pretty massive violations of NPOV. Stuff like concluding "As regards Luttwak's defence-in-depth theory itself, there appears to be insufficient clearcut evidence to support it and massive evidence against it", really? And where did all the arguments come from? Most of the paragraphs, making many different claims and rebuttals to Luttwak, have 1 or no citations at all, which is inadequate even if I assume everything is drawn from the cited papers. (Most of this seems to be coming from EraNavigator's original edits, so it's not a matter of anons inserting opinion but there from the beginning.) And the 2016 edition may have replies in it worth integrating. --Gwern (contribs) 23:29 4 September 2017 (GMT)

Merge?
Shouldn't this article be merged with Defence in depth? That one is better formatted, anyways. This one reads like a history book or a dissertation. 84.121.143.1 (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)