Talk:Joseph P. Kennedy II

"PERSONAL LIFE"
Five paragraphs here, of which the last two are longest - unsurprising, encompassing as they do an extended commentary on the comparative theologies of annulment in the Roman Catholic and Episcopelian faiths, together with some remarks on the jurisprudence of appeal in Rome's ecclesiastical courts. A person's first marriage ending twenty years ago merits no commentary or even notice, so two more paragraphs of aspersions cast on the sincerity of Kennedy's religious faith and practice is funhouse-mirror disproportionate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.85.237 (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

EXTREME BIAS IN THIS ARTICLE
I just typed a comment about the bias in this article and someone deleted it. That about says it all. Wikipedia is a sleezy joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were shouting (all caps), most editors will revert that.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have challenged the neutrality of this article since all positive information is being deleted and only scandalous or negative information is being allowed. That is just WRONG. Wikipedia is trying to slant and scandalize the information. This is disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The only data that is being deleted is unreferenced data - please see WP:BLP  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is bull. My positive remarks are being deleted BEFORE I even have time to type in a reference. There are some on here who are trying to allow only scandalous information. What is wrong with stating that he has a current wife? It is stated above on the same page. It is a knwon fact, already stated. The article reads as if only his prior divorce matters, rather than his current happy marriage. This whole process is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Ronhjones here. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  23:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And next time please try to disscuss things calmly. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  23:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Positive, well-cited encyclopedic material is welcome here. Quoting 63.215.27.57, "My positive remarks are being deleted BEFORE I even have time to type in a reference" – if you use the 'Show preview' button, you'll have plenty of time to view your changes and add your reference(s), then use 'Show preview' again before using 'Save page' to make your cited change publicly viewable.  --CliffC (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heads up guys. Handle this with care, and don't bite newcomers please. ƒ(Δ)² 16:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Scandals
I'm not in favor of the way many political biographies are dominated by listing their scandals, but I believe it has been disingenuous to suggest that Kennedy's gubernatorial plans were ended because he was considering running for the Senate. Kennedy himself stated his reason: "The race will focus on personal or family questions." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.101 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Pam Kelly
This is an important part of Joe Kennedy's past. Please do not delete this without discussion. 209.175.173.199 15:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am adding the following reference:
 * Dial Joe-4-Chávez, Wall Street Journal editorial, November 28, 2006

If you wish to document the car accident, fine. State the facts. However, implying that he is responsible for his brother’s drug addiction, and eventual overdose, is incredibly irresponsible and biased. It may be true that his drug addiction began with those painkillers, but no one forced him to keep taking the drugs. You can’t “make” someone an addict. Why not just detail the accident, the injuries that were suffered, what Kennedy was charged with, and leave it at that. The current description of the accident resembles some tawdry story from the National Enquirer.

David, by all accounts, was deeply troubled even before the accident. Source: "Symptoms of withdrawal," by Christopher Kennedy Lawford - page 106


 * "David had nightmares before his father was killed. The nightmares were always the same. He would awaken from them with the certainty that someone was going to do to his father what they had done to his uncle Jack.


 * ...His nightmare became real. He was the only one awake in the California hotel room and he never got over it. He never spoke about it, but he carried it with him all throughout his life.


 * ...When Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed Robert Kennedy, he also killed my best friend's heart and soul."

His drug addiction was also enabled by family friend, Lem Billings. Who gave them (David, his brother Bobby Jr, and cousin Chris Lawford) various narcotics while they were still underage. (Source: American legacy: the story of John & Caroline Kennedy, by Clemens David Heymann page 195)

It is also left out that during David's drug addiction, Joseph Kennedy was among the members of David's family who held an intervention, attempting to get David sober.(Source: Symptoms of withdrawal: a memoir of snapshots and redemption, by Christopher Kennedy Lawford - page 249)

It should be mentioned that the Kennedy family took responsibility for Ms. Kelley's medical costs at the time, and continued to pay for her care during the many years following the accident. (Source: Jackie, Ethel, Joan: women of Camelot, by J. Randy Taraborrelli page 243) Historybuff2283 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the information about the addiction, since I felt that the seriousness of the accident for David was understated in the article. Feel free to rework the language and/or add facts.  I never meant to imply responsibility in the moral sense, but only in the causal sense: One led to the other, which led to the other.  If you can think of a way to restate it to better reflect this and to remove any moral judgment you feel might be implied, again, feel free. Calbaer (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why not add this to the article about David Kennedy, instead? Why add extensive information about his drug addiction to Joseph’s page, unless you are suggesting that he caused his brother's addiction, and his death eleven years later? "One thing led to another" - I'm sorry, but that isn't a factual statement, it's an opinion. That Joseph caused the accident is a fact, and yes, it led to David’s injury. Joseph Kennedy did not, however, make his brother become addicted to the pain pills he was given. He certainly didn’t make David take cocaine, and later on heroin. Given that their brother Bobby nearly died of an overdose, and their cousin Chris Lawford also battled heroin addiction for years, one could just as easily argue that David could have become an addict even if there had never been an accident. It would seem to me, that the most appropriate place to discuss the affect of the accident on David’s life, would be in David’s wiki page, not Joseph's. Unless, of course, you honestly feel he was to blame for David's death, which is a fairly serious accusation to make. To even suggest "in the casual sense" that his brother is responsible for his death is appalling and defamatory. You have no more idea than I, or anyone else, what ultimately caused David Kennedy to self-destruct and overdose. Historybuff2283 (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I support the language being toned down if you really think it says what you're saying. However, leaving this out would be a rather curious omission.  Without it, it sounds like Pam Kelly had her life ruined by the accident and the Kennedys walked away scot-free.  But that's not what happened. Calbaer (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Suffix
I am reading Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s biography of Robert F. Kennedy, and on page 90, he refers to the subject of this article as "Joseph Patrick Kennedy III". Jesus geek 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that when someone is named after a family member, that his numeral changes if anyone in the name-line dies. That is, while Joseph P. Kennedy was alive, J P Kennedy III maintains that numeral. But when JP dies, each descendant with a numeral moves up one number. So that JP Kennedy III becomes J P Kennedy II. In this case, "II"--Joe Jr.--was already dead. He had been killed in his aircraft during World War II. Apparently, his death did not accelerate III to II. That may have something to do with his not being in the same line of descent, but being in a lateral line of descent (i.e. JP III was not descended from Joe Jr., but from Joe Jr.'s brother, RF Kennedy). But I believe that is the explanation of the numeral change. Schlesinger wrote this book while Joe Sr. was still living; hence his reference to the subject of this article with the numeral "III." I know, it is strange; how can your name change? I remember how puzzled I was when I first discovered this goyishe conundrum. It can clearly create major problems of confusion if there is one father-son pair who are both well-known. An example is John D. Rockefeller, where Jr., III (founder of the Asia Society) and IV (current Senator from W. Virginia) were (are) all independently well known. I think in this case they decided not to change their numerals when deaths occurred. Changing numerals after they are already well known would create so much confusion in writing about them (as you yourself have discovered). 66.108.105.21 19:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But Martin Luther King, Jr.'s son is Martin Luther King III, and he's not so well known other than as the son of MLK Jr. Jesus geek 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I mis-stated what I meant: If any one person in the name-line is independently well-known (by his own name), and someone in the name-line dies, then the famous one must keep his original name to avoid confusion, and it therefore follows that no other person can acquire the exact same name. "Martin Luther King, Jr." is simply too well known to be associated with any one other than the slain civil rights leader. So his son cannot acquire that name. Ergo, he kept his original name. If MLK III has a son MLK IV, then when MLK III dies, MLK IV would become MLK III, assuming that neither one is famous in his own right. But in most families, I do believe that this is the custom. 207.237.240.221 03:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Allen Roth
 * Actually JPK II should never have been known as JPK III. That's because JPK III coul have been the name of 'only' JPK Jr's son. In effect (concerning this family) JPK III is bestowed on a son of JPK II. GoodDay 23:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, as the name is not associated with any legal title of nobility, there is no real rule. Old etiquette books had a rule about the use of "Sr." and "Jr.", i.e. that the former always applied to the oldest living holder of the name, but we can't go by what "should" happen whether or not we consider it more elegant. We go by sources, and few sources give him the "III". --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This man is widely known as Joseph P Kennedy II now. Google it - his son, Joseph P Kennedy III, just announced his candidacy for office. 99.62.44.27 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it is strange to use numerals except with regard to fathers and sons -- uncles should not enter the equation. But that (the latter) is the convention that these guys seem to use, so it is correct to follow their lead.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this JPK IS in fact Joe III (though is commonly known as II), as III is officially the next in line of Jr. when it comes to suffixes, even if Jr. isn't the father, so those saying he is II are mistaken. This JPK would only be II if Joe, Sr. and Joe, Jr. had different full names and he had the same full name as Joe, Sr. and not the same full name as Joe, Jr. (i.e. if Joe, Sr. was Joseph Phillip and Joe, Jr. was Joseph Peter) or if he had the same full name as the uncle and not the same full name as the grandfather. You name for one, you name for all. Death has no impact on generational suffixes.


 * Examples of III's with the same names as Jr. uncles:


 * Ulysses S. Grant III was the nephew of Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. and grandson of President and Union General Ulysses S. Grant
 * Robert E. Lee III was the nephew of Robert E. Lee, Jr. and grandson of Confederate General Robert E. Lee
 * John Jacob Astor III was the nephew of John Jacob Astor, Jr. and grandson of fur-trader John Jacob Astor
 * Charles Francis Adams III was the nephew of Charles Francis Adams, Jr. and grandson of politician Charles Francis Adams, Sr.
 * Richard Thornton Wilson III was the nephew of Richard Thornton Wilson, Jr. and grandson of banker Richard Thornton Wilson, Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesomeone987 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

All these men share the same full name of their grandfathers AND uncles, thus are named to honor both.

Therefore, this JPK is Joe III, and his son is Joe IV. Sources such as http://carlanthonyonline.com/2012/02/07/a-presidents-residence-saved-the-kennedy-family-compound-with-rare-photos-of-their-real-life-there/ and http://www.kennedy-web.com/dates.htm list him as Joe III and his son as Joe IV. Thesomeone987 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

High School
Did he actually graduate from Manter Hall School? I went there for three years (1971-74), and I recall that he showed up briefly and was then expelled for starting fights. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to footnote [3] he graduated from Manter Hall. Further on, the article states "He had a troubled youth, and was expelled from several private schools as a result of his quick temper. He regularly got into fights with his younger brothers and male cousins", so starting fights at Manter would not be a big stretch, assuming a reliable source.  At least one (uncited) book states "but he eventually earned his high school diploma from the Manter Hall Tutoring School in Cambridge".  Cheers, CliffC (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I guess that's why I didn't see him in classes after he got kicked out. They tutored him off-campus. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Salary
Citation 37 for the statement "As of 2007, Kennedy's salary was $575,000 per year.[36][37]" doesn't mention this salary. I couldn't find citation 36 to verify. After a quick Google I can find figures of 400K to 800K for years after 2000 but nothing with a source. There is Joe's statement in 2007 of $60K ("As for questioning my $60,000 salary for administering a $60 million program...", http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/archive/x646407302). Citizen's Energy Corp's public filings should provide total salaries and at least provide an upper limit to speculation. Anyway, can someone verify this figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.223.103 (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I found a citable salary figure ($596,988 in 2010) and got rid of the other citations.  The NY Times article cited said nothing about salary and was probably the wrong citation all along.  Cheers, CliffC (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed source for Citizens for Citizens (Citizens for Health)
Another group I believe he founded; at the least he has been heavily involved in it. http://www.cfcinc.org/citizens_health/

I think it is worthy of a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benthatsme (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Dates
The line: During the last two years, Citgo donated eighty-three million gallons of oil, which was used to provide heating assistance to an estimated 200,000 families a year in twenty-three states.[46]

The last two years from when? The reference seems to indicate 2007-2008?98.229.2.88 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Namesake
I have nothing to do with what appear to be recent edit wars (example), but I just came across this article and would like more information on the material that User:Designate is restoring. If the source is not available online, can you please give us a relevant quote? Did he only clarify that his suffix is "II" and not "III"? Or did he really state that he was named for his grandfather and not his uncle? I don't immediately have a source, but I thought that RFK named him for his uncle and pointedly not for his grandfather. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's the relevant quote from the Atlanta Journal.
 * It may be an old non-free source but it's pretty explicit. —Designate (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, this JPK IS in fact Joe III (though is commonly known as II), as III is officially the next in line of Jr. when it comes to suffixes, even if Jr. isn't the father, so those saying he is II are mistaken. This JPK would only be II if Joe, Sr. and Joe, Jr. had different full names and he had the same full name as Joe, Sr. and not the same full name as Joe, Jr. (i.e. if Joe, Sr. was Joseph Phillip and Joe, Jr. was Joseph Peter) or if he had the same full name as the uncle and not the same full name as the grandfather. You name for one, you name for all. Death has no impact on generational suffixes.


 * Examples of III's with the same names as Jr. uncles:


 * Ulysses S. Grant III was the nephew of Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. and grandson of President and Union General Ulysses S. Grant
 * Robert E. Lee III was the nephew of Robert E. Lee, Jr. and grandson of Confederate General Robert E. Lee
 * John Jacob Astor III was the nephew of John Jacob Astor, Jr. and grandson of fur-trader John Jacob Astor
 * Charles Francis Adams III was the nephew of Charles Francis Adams, Jr. and grandson of politician Charles Francis Adams, Sr.
 * Richard Thornton Wilson III was the nephew of Richard Thornton Wilson, Jr. and grandson of banker Richard Thornton Wilson, Sr.


 * All these men share the same full name of their grandfathers AND uncles, thus are named to honor both.


 * Therefore, this JPK is Joe III, and his son is Joe IV. Sources such as http://carlanthonyonline.com/2012/02/07/a-presidents-residence-saved-the-kennedy-family-compound-with-rare-photos-of-their-real-life-there/ and http://www.kennedy-web.com/dates.htm list him as Joe III and his son as Joe IV. Thesomeone987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, his name is Joseph P. Kennedy II because that is his name, end of story. If he wanted to call himself "Joseph VI" or "Walter Jr." or "Throat Warbler Mangrove" or "Sue" then that would be his name, no matter how angry it makes you or how little sense you think it makes. His "official" name is the one that appears on "official" documents and in nearly every article ever written about him: Joseph P. Kennedy II. There's nothing else to consider. —Designate (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Upon reviewing the Kennedy family National Archives (http://docsteach.org/documents/192701/print) and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s book "Robert Kennedy and His Times", it would appear this Kennedy is III as calling him "II" would be like discounting the uncle or grandfather when they all have the exact same first, middle, last name. Schlesinger personally knew the Kennedys and worked with JFK and RFK, so his work should be taken into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.14.50 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Joseph P. Kennedy II. 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/20100108061657/https://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P5G.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P5G.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)