I don't think there's much value in articles such as this. This one in particular uses an incredible amount of vague language (What do you mean by "agile"?), an

I don't think there's much value in articles such as this. This one in particular uses an incredible amount of vague language (What do you mean by "agile"?), and sets up a number of straw men (Did anyone ever claim retrospectives fix everything?). This kind of writing always seems to me to be trying to limit discussion in some way. It pretends to criticize a certain approach by bringing up problems that don't really exist (or aren't important), but implicitly accepting the basic principles of the thing they're criticizing, thus framing the debate. On one side we have the total religious fanatics who apply Agile to everything, and on the other are the sensible agilists, who don't think that "retrospectives fix everything". Okay, that's a debate you can have but it's an extremely narrow spectrum of opinion. If you're really trying to reach people who are "agile-averse", then you ought to argue for your approach with them and demonstrate that your way has merit.