Talk:Esther Duflo

Untitled
The John List this article links to is a mass murderer. Let's clean this up, folks.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Esther Duflo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225075551/http://www.uclouvain.be/308413.html to http://www.uclouvain.be/308413.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,41
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110304215031/http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/about.htm to http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/about.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622232605/http://cepr.org/RESEARCH/pdlist.htm to http://www.cepr.org/RESEARCH/pdlist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

2019 Nobel prize in economics
In-line referencing needs urgent attention.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

She's the second woman to win this prize. So? Why do we even need to mention this fact? 31.52.160.6 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the nobel prize be in the first paragraph? Newystats (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Duflo in Moscow, August 1991
Russian photograper Dmitry Borko says that he photograped Esther Duflo among protesters during 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt: -- A man without a country (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Conclusive evidence
The claim in the Early Life and Education section that her paper "provided conclusive evidence" is problematic. Leaving aside the question of what is meant by "conclusive evidence", a single paper should not be the sole evidence for any firm conclusions. It is especially inappropriate for making a cause and effect claim about historical facts, no single factor (i.e. "more education") will necessarily lead to a certain outcome ("higher wages"). I suggest that the offending sentence be rewritten with a bit more humility. How about "provided solid evidence"?98.17.44.45 (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Obama appoints French Socialist Funded by Saudi Billionaire" by Daniel Greenfield at Financial Times
"Obama Appoints French Economist Funded by Saudi Billionaire" by Gary P. Jackson at WordPress and Daniel Greenfield at Financial Times. SpsproductionsTwo (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)