Talk:Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Channel Next Nostradamus

Anyone know anything about this "mathematical equation that can predict human history?" Apparently Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is being featured in a history channel special saying he can predict the future of world societies through some kind of equation he derived historically. I was trying to find the theoretical basis for this online but haven't come across anything at all, nor the actual equation.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=389122 75.108.217.129 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that on history channel - it was a mess. It had went back in forth from rambling Nostradamus nonsense, to voice over's talk about his 'formula to see into the future' and then to Bueno de Mesquita talking reasonably about his models and such. I rather pitied him watching it as it looked like (based on just the clips with him in it and what he was saying) that he thought this was going to be a show about his model, not two hours of rambling non-sense. I'm sure he'll at least take some serious teasing from his peers - I hope that's the worst of what he gets out of this.

Don't watch the history channel show hoping to get any insight into his model, the only formulas you'll see is scrolling mathematical gibberish - nothing real. If you haven't watched the history channel show - don't its a waste of time. 99.147.242.152 (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issac Asimov s Foundation series. Hari Seldon psychohistory 67.207.42.209 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The show "Next Notradamus" is obviously such complete bull I'm ashamed to see it on the History channel. It is just like an informercial where the only validation comes from the person hawking his own product. The 3 people who constitute the vast majority of interviews have their own axe to grind. The few objective opinions given basically say the whole idea is ridiculous. Anyone who remembers Jeanne Dixon will remember that she was rarely right. But when she was she managed to get overwhelming press coverage - especially in rags like the National Enquirer. Please email THC and tell them that this is Jerry Springer fare and not fit to be on their airwaves.

It is interesting that THC piece never made mention of whether any of his ideas/models had undergone rigorous peer review in scientific journals. As they say, even a blind hog can find an acorn every once in a while. Well that's probably not the best example, but the point is that there will always be one on the tail end of the normal distribution who can put together a string of good predictions. He probably has good intuition, but I doubt there is any real modeling behind it. I suspect he claims a model underpins the work to give it more credibility in modern times.--67.142.130.30 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BDM hasn't explicitly put his computational model out, though he's had a few published pieces that border on describing it, including one in the American Political Science Review. In general, he hasn't revealed much about it, since he apparently is making bank selling the results. He has published many other very highly regarded pieces, however, and is among the most capable minds currently working in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.122.158 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a criticism section with a fairly comprehensive and reliable looking article describing some of the criticisms. Don't have time right now to find primary sources. Socraticmethodacting (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added an external link to a compilation of publications that criticize BdM's theories. Would it be appropriate to mention this link in the Criticism section? Sniedo (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really fair to have a criticism section without a section that at least presents the case FOR him first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.186.218 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Iran nuclear missle test, 2008"?

The first paragraph states that the History Channel documentary incorrectly stated that "Iran has launched a nuclear missile in 2008". As I recall it had rather had stated that North Korea had made a nuclear missle test. I think that the Korean test was of a missle, not a nuclear missle. Does anyone recall this from the TV documentary? uriel8 (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions

can we have some references for the supposed predictions? 92.40.231.43 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i changed your multiple inline templates to a more appropriate single template. section titles should not have interwikis nor inline templates. thanks for worrying.--camr ^nag 20:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if no one provides any reliable citations for the "predictions" with evidence he really did predict these events before they happened in the next few days I'm removing the section. This kind of nonsense does not belong in an encyclopaedia 94.197.240.94 (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

given the size and "popularity" of this article, i think we should give it at least a week... (btw, i really doubt this guy did all that)--camr ^nag 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them 81.100.104.167 (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics? Subjective

Ethical decisions depend upon a person's individual experience. What is it that determines whether a person will act for the benefit of the common good, if they will act for their sole benefit? I believe that you are the sum of how you were raised and your environment. Your core values and your ability to adhere to your values regardless of peer, crowd, or personal pressure are dictated by these factors. Hitler, Jim Jones, Schindler, Ghandi.??? It is a mystery, at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.246.154 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Gingermint (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the documentary

I think we should include this phrase: "The documentary also incorrectly states that Iran has launched a nuclear missile in 2008. In fact, Iran has both a confirmed civilian nuclear energy program and a separate missile program, but has not demonstrated any nuclear weapons capability". i feel this should be there because it adds depth to the mention of the documentary. if not, why not eliminate the documentary altogether?--camr ^nag 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is the reference proving that the documentary actually stated Iran had tested a nuclear missile at all? As you can see above "uriel8" disputes this claim. I do not see how this claim proves anything about Bueno de Mesquita's scientific worth whatsoever. It is entirely irrelevant and also unreferenced 92.40.135.22 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the documentary itself is not referenced... should we put "citation needed" everywhere the article states something about the documentary, or just when it's a negative comment?--camr ^nag 23:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I believe any unreferenced material should be removed81.100.102.31 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the documentary from the article. If all we've got to say about it is that it sucks, it's probably not notable in the first place. Trying to undermine Bueno de Mesquita's credibility by picking out articles from the mass media and saying they're unreferenced is poor Wikipedia practice. Of course they're unreferenced: they're mass media sources and what you're adding to that is original research. I'm not that enthused about game theory myself, but if you want to say Bueno de Mesquita's model is not peer-reviewed or that he is a numerologist quack, then find a source that says that - or forever hold your peace. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP policies

I removed a lot of material of questionable reliability, particularly in the external links section.

The professor's work with Organski and his other contributions deserve mention. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Tanzania ban

"He was banned from entering Tanzania, following an argument with the leader about foreign policy. [citation needed]"

I couldn´t find a source so I removed this sentence from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Blaubiget (talk • contribs) 04:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Career

I think I'm going to add a section on his academic career soon. I am an avid reader of his publications. Any advice on writing this section would be appreciated. Adamopoulos (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources?

Currently there are 13 references for this article. 10 are links to papers or books the subject wrote, 1 is his CV, 1 is a now-broken link to a Science News article, leaving us with just 1 independent resource - the New York Times article from more than a decade ago which is partially behind a paywall. Surely we need more quality references - peer reviewed articles would be preferable, but some general third party sources would help too. I'm not a political science guy so I don't really know what to look for. Cheers IrishStephen (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]