Talk:New historicism

Micheal Crichton link …
is dead. I believe it to be gone forever. As well, other reports of the speech make only the most tenuous link to New Historicism, so I think it should be deleted along with the discussion. It doesn't really contribute to the debate, but merely glosses Crichton's reputation as a sort of pop polymath.Theonemacduff (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see the relevance of the reference to the discussion. Chrichton's argument seems to be against a specific individual rather than the methodology of New Historicism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.248.161.101 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. It also, quite frankly, is a preposterous argument, as far as I can tell. It has nothing to do with New Historicism whatsoever. Maybe he's responding to a bad argument. But bad arguments exist widely, and pointing them out is not a refutation of an approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenagainstthebes (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I too found this did not seem to add anything. I also found that the link for the reference to "Why Speculate?, a lecture at the International Leadership Forum, La Jolla, California April 26, 2002." was broken. I have therefore deleted the statement which seems to have automatically deleted the broken reference. Mike Milligan (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)