Talk:Profiles in Courage

ghost writer controversy
Did Kennedy actually write this? Kingturtle 03:10, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It was ghostwritten, probably by Ted Sorenson. See http://www.tvrundown.com/cases/lostfil6.html. RickK 03:17, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The link you refer to strongly suggests that it wasn't ghostwritten. As much as we might like to think that Kennedy paid a proxy to write a Pulitzer Prize winning book for him, the evidence seems to indicate that he did, in fact take the lead in writing this, with Sorenson acting as an acknowledged and paid researcher. --67.171.28.197 03:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why exactly are there two indentical links listed? Its the same article. I'm removing one of them. --Kross 17:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, User:67.171.28.197|67.171.28.197] maybe you have a different interpretation of the linked article, but it definitely does not “strongly suggest” that Kennedy was the author. It suggests that ABC wanted to avoid a lawsuit with no upside and plenty of downside and instead gave a retraction that was considered a “craven gesture” by Mike Wallace. My reading makes me wonder why the elder Kennedy was so touchy... I think the most important info about the book is the gostwriter charge and should be included in this article 221.28.55.68 04:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Mike Wallace quote inculded here? There is no suggestion that he had any information other than that stated elsewhere in the section. Plazak 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

agreed. I suggest removal of it on grounds of redundancy. 64.215.225.254 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio also, I removed the citation tag for Sorensen's alleged defense of Kennedy since the Straight Dope link also argues the same. We can't link it as a source if we only agree with part of it. And, no, I don't believe Kennedy wrote it. But, meh, that's life. It obviously didn't bother Sorensen.64.215.225.254 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Wellesradio

It looks as if Sorensen himself has ended the controversy...in his 2008 memoir Counselor he admits that he wrote most of the book and that in the 1950s he even bragged privately at Washington parties that he was the author (he claimed in Counselor that he regrets having bragged about it). JFK paid Sorensen a healthy sum of money (over half the book's royalties), which Sorensen says led him to tell JFK that he was "disinclined" to claim authorship of the book. Although he states that JFK wrote most of the first and last chapters, Sorensen wrote most of the rest of the book, with some "editorial guidance" from Kennedy. I think that should pretty much settle the issue, as it's now clear that Sorensen did indeed "ghost write" the book for JFK, and that JFK was not the main author. 2602:304:691E:5A29:844C:6BF6:6BAB:253 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact is, no one knows for sure. We know what Sorensen claims, which may or may not be true, but that's all we know, and all that is worthy of note in an encyclopedia article. Attempts to say in the article it is a fact that Sorensen wrote the book or any part of it should be deleted, and I have fixed the lede to reflect this. It may be that the article needs additional trimming, since a substantial portion is not about the substance of the book but about the claims of authorship made by various parties.   Jus  da  fax   01:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your statement: "We know what Sorensen claims, ... but that's all we know." is inaccurate. There had been doubts about Kennedy's authorship long before Sorensen's 2008 autobiography. There is also the account of historian Jules Davids, who also worked on the book, and the material in the Kennedy Library that convinced historians Garry Wills and Herbert Parmet that Kennedy organized and supervised, but did little of the actual writing. You are correct that "no one knows for sure", and therefore it should not be stated as a fact, but the preponderance of evidence appears to support a limited role for Kennedy in the actual writing of the book. Plazak (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Plazak is correct about this. Both Garry Wills and Herbert Parmet wrote extensively about Sorensen's involvement in writing the book as far back as the early 1980s. In numerous interviews over the years, Sorensen, as he admitted, never stated directly that he hadn't written large sections of the book, but instead essentially claimed that the author of a book is the person who puts their name on the cover, and thus JFK was the author. I would think if Ted Sorensen, one of JFK's closest aides, described in detail in his own autobiography the role he played in the creation of Profiles in Courage, then that should be strong evidence of what actually occurred in the production of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * “The fact is, no one knows for sure. We know what Sorensen claims, which may or may not be true, but that's all we know, and all that is worthy of note in an encyclopedia article.” Jusdafax 01:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There are countless cases historically where we don’t know for sure what happened. This is not one of them. Maybe you ought to study the matter, instead of harrumphing about things about which you know nothing. 2604:2000:1580:4139:0:D54B:FA08:974D (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The first post here has the word controversy in it. The discussion has been about the controversy for over 14 years. There has even been disagreement over whether it is a controversy or not. Someone explain to me how it's accepted as a controversy yet the prase in the lead of the article includes "In his 2008 autobiography, Kennedy's speechwriter Ted Sorensen said he had written most of the book under Kennedy's guidance." with absolutely no source given at all. I need an explanation to keep me from removing it as a total violation of Wikipedia's most basic guidelines about proper sourcing claims with reliable sources. It doesn't even line up with the wiki page on Sorenson's book or the sole reference on that page to a Washington Post piece about political memoirs that mentions the book in passing. Nobody uses Sorenson's actual book. It can be seen as revisionist because it claims that Sorenson wrote most of the book, regardless of whether it was under Kennedy's guidance at all. The claims as written is not anywhere to be found, not even in the Washinton Post article. The book Profiles in Courage has Kennedy name on it as an author. I may be accepted lore that Sorenson played some role because he was a brilliant speech writer but to extend that to a claim that he wrote most of the book is. But Wikipedia doesn't traffic in lore about recent important history figues. If the kind of thing if it should be anywhere in the article, it should not be in the lead. It can be seen as an attempt to undermine Kenedy before discussion fo the book even begins.Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a controversy about whether Kennedy wrote the book, and has been for decades. The phrase in the lead you criticize is from Sorensen's 2008 memoir Counselor, and is thus certainly a credible source under Wikipedia guidelines and should not have been removed. To claim that "nobody uses Sorensen's actual book" is simply absurd; as Kennedy's main speechwriter, and one of his top aides throughout his presidency, Sorensen is most certainly a credible source. There are numerous other JFK biographies by legitimate historians which have also concluded that Sorensen and historian Jules Davids did nearly all of the writing, including Garry Wills, Herbert Parmet, and Robert Dallek. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the general consensus among historians today is that while Kennedy provided the idea for the book and named the politicians to be profiled, it was Sorensen and Davids that did most of the actual research and writing. Richard Aldous, in his recent biography of historian and JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., also gives an extended discussion of Sorensen's role in writing Profiles in Courage. Personal opinions or admiration for an historical figure should not lead to credible sources or claims being arbitrarily deleted because an editor doesn't like what the sources are saying. The "controversy" over the authorship of Profiles in Courage is well-discussed in historical literature at this point and, frankly, not mentioning the controversy at all in the lead is rather misleading, as is flatly stating that "Kennedy is credited as the author", especially given the evidence cited in later sections of the article. His name is certainly on the cover as the author, but the story is rather more complicated than that, and some mention of the controversy should be included in the lead section, given its historical prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1011:C156:4884:1355:5AF3:1F7B (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Jackie Kennedy seems to also have been extensively assisting with this book. Researching, taking notes, discussing passages, critically reading manus versions, etc... As we know Sorensen did the researche in the archives, and thus not Jackie as hinted by her biographer. We may perhaps presume Jackie helped John with the instructions to Sorensens; what he shall look after... My source is the biography by Katherine Pancol "Une si belle image - Jackie Kennedy". I have read the swedish translation. And I believe this, because Jackie had a good enough background. A solid university education, mainly in French language and culture, but also courses in American history. She was a good writer and an ex journalist... Very energetic and very able when she wanted to. So, the tale Jackie had a good share in the books forthcomings sounds very possible - and thus sounds true. Not even mentioning it was Jackie whom was at Johns side when he was bound to the hospital bed and afterwards./StefanZ, Sweden90.231.255.39 (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)/StefanZ

misc
Why is there no ISBN?

John Quincy Adams WAS a Senator...he served the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the U.S senate from 1803 until 1808 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.2.237 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Profile in the Preface?

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I would swear that the book's preface contains what could be called a profile in courage of President John Tyler as an example followed by the other profiles.

Oscar W. Underwood?
I thought I remembered him being in there; perhaps he was mentioned but not totally profiled? Or was there a later edition? Or am I just thinking of someplace else?99.97.81.20 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Date
When was this book first published? The first paragraph has 1957, the infobox 1955, the categories 1956. The first date in the WorldCat entry is 1948. ––– Robina Fox (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Profiles in Courage. 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/20091013192613/http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/0046.html to http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/0046.html

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) 05:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I Do Not Consider Frederick Logevall To Be A Qualified Or Reliable Source
His work promotes the legendary status of Kennedy in a way that is far from neutral.2601:447:4100:1BE0:C0B5:5AFD:35B8:7A5 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact is that the great majority of modern historians who have written about the controversy over Profiles in Courage - Dallek, Wills, Parmet, Fehrman, etc. - have all clearly stated that while Kennedy may have developed the idea for the book and edited the book and perhaps wrote (or helped write) the foreword, that it was Sorensen and Jules Davids who did most of the writing. As Garry Wills put it, the Pulitzer was a writer's prize, and Kennedy did not actually write the book - his role was more that of an editor than the main writer.

However, one cannot tell that from this article, in which the last three paragraphs consist of nothing but Logevall's arguments that Kennedy deserved to be called the author because Kennedy gave Sorensen more direction and assistance than, in his opinion, other writers have admitted. It definitely appears that Logevall's account is a minority view among historians, yet his argument dominates the last quarter of the article. IMO, the sections describing his argument should be trimmed back and edited to give it less weight compared to the majority view of historians described in earlier paragraphs in this article. It definitely seems as if a JFK enthusiast is using Logevall's argument to try and discredit all of the historians and writers mentioned earlier in this article by giving him the last word on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:C402:2A45:1005:B898:CF18:E7D2 (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Jules Davids Should Be Included More In The Article Too
Please don't erase information about him that is reliable and constructive.2601:447:4100:1BE0:C0B5:5AFD:35B8:7A5 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)