Talk:Trevor N. Dupuy

Publications list
We need to go through the list of publications and change them so they aren't all caps. RJFJR 13:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. We also need to pare down the list to those that are both verifiable and notable. Valrith 21:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispersal theory
Please could there be some details about his Dispersal Theory. 80.2.209.109 23:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

QJM
I was surprisingly shocked to stumble across the Wiki article on Col. Dupuy and find that it has no mention of QJM; I feel relatively certain that it is what the man is most famous for outside of perhaps certain niche interest circles. It's like reading a description of Fritz Leiber that describes him only as the inventor of a obscure naval warfare game. I don't really feel competent to write it for inclusion myself; I'm possibly too overwhelmed that it isn't already here. After I get over the shock maybe I'll take a crack at it.Paganize (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal Biography and fact checking
T.N. Dupuy had 9 children (not 3) and I was number six. Is there any need to list the man's children, anyway?

Any of us could add information to this article, however my brother Arnold C. Dupuy would be best. He worked with T.N.Dupuy as a military analyst and historian for the last decade or so of our father's life.Med.de (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Why is the article plagiarized nearly word for word? Didn't anyone realize that copying copyrighted language from a website wouldn't be permissable? Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mild NPOV issue
In the paragraph describing the Encyclopedia of Military History, I replaced "Like most Western reference works it spends far more time dealing with wars in Europe and the United States than the rest of the world, but it does at least try to cover the entire world." with neutral language in the form of "The book focuses mainly on the American and Western European experiences but offers some coverage of other regions of the world."

I appreciate that point of view is an issue here but the original struck me as editorializing, on three grounds: a) the tone implied editorial criticism rather than neutral description of the work; b) [perhaps more controversially] it is unsurprising that an American writing on these subjects would prioritize the American and European histories, as a Chinese scholar [for example] would even now likely place heavier emphasis on his/her own military historical traditions even writing in a world context; c) it implied that there might be some body of non-Western similar work to Dupuy's which lacks such a bias or that this is a typically "Western" practice. The military historical traditions of other societies have suggested it is normative.

As this may touch on competing points of view, I have left the idea that the work contains mainly American and European examples but offered more neutral language to describe it. Random noter (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)