Talk:Nicholas Kristof

Neutrality

This article should also include the criticisms he's received for inaccuracies, simplifying or at least failing to explain the underlying problems that leave women and children vulnerable to abuse, playing the "white savior", and engaging in controversial practices like "raid and rescues" which some sex workers and human rights advocates believe do more harm then good, etc.

As it stands the article does not cover the full spectrum of public reception to his work.

Possible references to address this issue include: Anti-Nicholas Kristof Backlash, White Knight, Column Is Slammed For Its Portrayal Of Central African Republic, Columnist Nicholas Kristof Is Looking More and More Like He’s Running for Oregon Governor, the Shady Sex-Work Abolitionist Group That Gutted Pornhub, Kristof and the Holy War on Pornhub — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.107.69 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that this comment was ignored and in adding the anti-Japanese section (mentioned below) incorporated these as well, making a "controversies" section. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Defamation Suit

Did anything ever come of this? I read in the news that in early May the suit was allowed to go forward. Hmm, other than that, however, nothing much was said. Shadowrun 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Atypical Liberal?

Kristof is known for taking some positions that push against the grain of what is commonly believed by most American liberals. He strongly advocates expanding the use of nuclear power, calling it a "green" technology, he's for the use of DDT in specific instances, like for mosquito netting, I recall he once stated that despite his opposition to the Iraq war, the greatest danger was from those who advocate an immediate, unconditional withdrawl of American forces, and he champions so-called "sweatshops" as an imperfect but acceptable & preferable form of labor for third world nations. Should this against-the-grain attitude be reflected in the article?

Unlike some of the more...idealistic reporters of our time (Anderson Cooper comes directly to mind), he's more down to earth and far more realistic about his oppinions. Yeah, if it could woven into the main article with neutral attitude, I could see that stance viable to put add. Shadowrun 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Win a Trip with Nick Kristof contest" section

This section is longer than any other in the article and is definitely the least relevant to Kristof himself. Any objection if I cut it down substantially? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagarism of Kristof's NYT bio

The line "He has lived on four continents, reported on six, and traveled to 150 countries and all 50 states." is a cut and paste of Kristof's NYT bio. It is, at the very least, uncited close paraphrasing. Please advise. 129.10.76.111 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My name is James Henry Willis. I was friends with Ladis Kristof and am still friends with Jane. She is an activist and I see her most months at the Yamhill County Democratic Central Committee think tank, where we plan political campaigns. Jane has informed me many times that Nicholas was born before they left Chicago, but that a local partisan keeps placing his birth as Yamhill OR. I don't think you could get more authoritative about a birth than the word of the mother. Dr. Kristof is, as they say, still sharp as a tack. Forgive me if this posting is incorrectly placed or formatted.

The article says his parents are professors at Portland State. Professors of what? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.233.97 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

New image

Here's a picture for Nickolas Kristof in Pearl Roundabout last February. The guy shaving him is a Pakistani who currently works and lives in the village of Bani Jamra, Bahrain. Abraj Al Lulu can be seen in the background. If anyone is interested, this image can be added to the article and maybe a section can be written about his opinions regarding the 2011-2012 Bahraini uprising. Bahraini Activist (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jane McWilliams Kristof's ethnic / racial background?

Kristof's father's ethnicity is discussed briefly yet in some detail. However, his mother's race / ethnicity is ignored. Why is the father's ethnicity privileged over that of the mother? Because of institutional patriarchy on the part of the writers of this article (or institutional racism if his mother is a person of color)? I hope someone can correct this inequity that characterizes too may Wikipedia articles, i.e., the privileging one parent's ethnic / racial background by discussing it while erasing from consciousness that of the other parent.

If someone answers that the ethnicity / race of the other parent is simply unknown at the present time, then Wikipedia writers should at least address that inequity by mentioning such. Otherwise the charges of patriarchy and / or racism will howl against the injustice of (willful?) ignorance of it (which may not be the fault of Wikipedia).

As one awaits the ethnicity / race of Kristof's mother from a researcher (perhaps James Henry Willis who writes above and who claims to know the mother personally), one is reminded that justice delayed is justice denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.106.39 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget the "race" womb-bearer who birthed nadless Nicholas Kristof what we really need to know is his and his womb-bearer/sperm-contributor's faith, ie. are they "Jewish" as thaaaat would explain the family's radical Leftwing politics. 2601:842:200:47E0:1003:BD90:22C:B2EC (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicholas Kristof. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071118105823/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1372824000&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ei=5007 to http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1372824000&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ei=5007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Quote Favoring Iraq Regime Change

I've deleted the following quote from the Iraq War section. It followed another one from the same op-ed, the column of Aug 27, 2002 entitled "Wimps on Iraq." The quote deleted is "President Bush has convinced me that there is no philosophical reason we should not overthrow the Iraqi government, given that Iraqis themselves would be better off, along with the rest of the world." This is, in isolation, an accurate quote from the source cited.

This sounds like Kristof had adopted a favorable opinion of invading to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But reading the column, one realizes that Kristof went on to make clear that even if the idea of regime change is accepted, he opposed the invasion because, given conditions in Iraq and the region, bad effects would likely far outweigh the 'good' of disposing Saddam. He then ends the column with scathing criticism of George Bush for ignoring these factors; this criticism includes the quote that preceded the one I removed from the Wikipedia article.

Matter could be added to the article to explain this context, but I don't think introducing such complexity would serve the encyclopedic purpose of clarity for the general reader. It seems to me the quote was included by someone who either did not really understand it in context, or else quoted out-of-context deliberately, to muddy the record. Either way, there is no good reason for the quote to be in the wiki article in the first place. Regionrat1234 (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Samplingwithreplacement: Thanks for your editing on this section. Improved flow, got things in propert order. Good editing! Regionrat1234 (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicholas Kristof. 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/20160915065222/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/60408-1/Nicholas+Kristof.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/60408-1/Nicholas+Kristof.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Kristof's anti-Japanese racism

The start of the article has an entire paragraph about how "progressive" Kristof is. However, he is known in Japan for a huge slew of offensive articles about Japan, ranging from sensationalist to plain racist, to the point that the Japanese Wikipedia article has a massive section on it, and there are entire books written about this (笑われる日本人: ニューヨーク・タイムズが描く不可思議な日本/ ISBN-10:4812306159 - While the book's title says "New York Times" all of the articles mentioned were written by Kristov). Shouldn't this be addressed in the English article as well? The current version seems extremely biased through selective omission. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If there are no objections I shall add a section on controversies. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

As there were no objections in nearly two months since I added the first comment, I added a controversies section. 27.84.15.217 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Controversies section

I'm noticing that a WP:CSECTION has been created in this article. Many of the citations appear to be to primary sources, which appears to hit on original research; this sort of thing is not allowed on Wikipedia. Other items seem to cite opinion pieces for objective facts; per WP:RSEDITORIAL, these things aren't reliable for facts other than what a particular author thinks about a particular topic, and they often aren't WP:DUE. This is a biography of a living person, so sourcing standards are quite high. I don't understand why the sourcing is so bad here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

editorializing

Kaspar-trout, I have reverted this edit, which you justified with: Adjusted phrasing to reduce editorialized wording and avoid undue implication of consensus in Wikipedia voice per WP. Could you show me where you see consensus in support of your changes? إيان (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@إيان I see, but perhaps we could have had this conversation before reverting. Anyway, my concern was specifically with the phrase “already well known in Israel,” which in my view reads as Wikipedia asserting a level of societal consensus or established public knowledge on a contentious topic where the truth isn't universally agreed upon. I adjusted it to “had previously circulated in Israeli public discourse” to keep the information intact, the attribution narrower and avoid editorial implication in Wikipedia voice.

More broadly, I also felt the paragraph’s structure created a subtle and manipulative imbalance in tone by presenting named human voices (without telling who they are and how they are perceived) on one side and mostly impersonal institutional/media criticism on the other, which can unintentionally dramatize the reading. I’m not opposed to including any of the sourced viewpoints, only to keeping the wording and framing as neutral and non-interpretive as possible per WP and WP. Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

but perhaps we could have had this conversation before reverting You would have been welcome to start a conversation before implementing your changes, but the WP:ONUS is on the editor who seeks to implement changes to build WP:CONSENSUS in support of those changes.

which in my view An editor's personal views fall into WP:OR and are almost always out of place on Wikipedia. The best practice is to report what the WP:RELIABLESOURCES actually say. إيان (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@إيان I said "which in my opinion" in a conversational way while talking to you - the problem in your edit is factual. I know WP:OR thank you. Kaspar-trout (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been convinced. إيان (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Which is your personal opinion. Kaspar-trout (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if Kaspar-trout's edit is an improvement, but making bold edits is fine in general, and it's ok to give views on talk pages. WP:ONUS applies to adding content rather than rephrasing, and the proposed edit is supported by the sources, not original research. Alenoach (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for helping us out @Alenoach Kaspar-trout (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@إيان @Alenoach

My concern is less with the inclusion of either viewpoint and more with the way the paragraph is framed.

The sentence currently presents named individuals (Yuli Novak and Omer Bartov) making a factual-sounding assertion that the issue was "already well known in Israel", which gives the claim a degree of authority and apparent social consensus. By contrast, the criticism is presented through institutions ("The Free Press", "The Wall Street Journal", "The Times of Israel", etc.) and is framed as something they "alleged". The result is that one side is humanized and presented through identifiable voices, while the other is presented as institutional skepticism.

Whether intentional or not, this creates an asymmetry in attribution and tone. Readers are more likely to perceive the first claim as established knowledge and the second as a disputed opinion.

My edit was an attempt to reduce that effect by replacing "already well known in Israel" with wording that stays closer to what the sources demonstrate ("had previously circulated in Israeli public discourse"), avoiding an implication of broad societal consensus in Wikipedia's voice. I am not objecting to the inclusion of either viewpoint, only to maintaining a more neutral and symmetrical presentation of them.

Can we try to fix it? Kaspar-trout (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you read the cited sources? It is rather well documented that, for example, Channel 12 (Israel) aired footage of a gang rape at Sde Teiman, and then Israelis protested to disrupt the detention of the accused soldiers while Israeli politician came out justifying sexual violence (other Israeli politicians too) against Palestinians in Israeli custody if they are Nukhba forces. (Israel discharged the soldiers accused of involvement and they are free to go.) إيان (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I did read of course. My point (as I said) isn't about the information itself rather the rethoric it has been shape in. It's just a matter of form and language, not content. Please read my previous message more carefully. Kaspar-trout (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)