Talk:James Soong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taiwanese & Media[edit]

Its conventional knowledge here in Taiwan that Soong barred the use of Taiwanese in Television media and had helped propagate the widespread use of Mandarin in Taiwan. Should that detail be included?

Son's "real" name[edit]

(Quick Note): I'm not exactly clear what the first sentence means (on Taiwan?)

Maybe Taiwanese media has extremely good etiquette, but despite the controversies about James Soong's son, only detailed info on James Soong is available, not on his son. For example, the most basic info: what is the son's English name? English translations of Chinese news simply uses half-decent Wade-Giles: Soong Chen-yuan (combining a non-Wade surname).

But obviously Soong Chen-yuan would not use this order in the USA, regardless how Chinese he is. But it's apparently not Chen-yuan Soong or Chenyuan Soong. Nor is it his Chinese give name with "Sung" or "Song". So he probably has an English name like his father. In any case, Googling around showed no result. I just thought that if we have his son's name here, we should have his "real" name too, since he's American.

--Menchi 07:10 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Soong is rumored to have close ties to organized crime as exemplified by his cordial friendship with convicted racketeer and local heavy, Yen Ching-piao."

The statement above by the pro-independence anon could not be verfied. Googling both names at once does not present a direct relationship, except in a highly biased article by the Taipei times. And in that article, it just stated "And in fact only a few days before Chen's visit to the pilgrimage, PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and KMT Vice Chairman Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) turned up at the start of the pilgrimage to pay their respects to Yen." This does not imply there was a close relationship. --Jiang 06:32, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

MT: I've added a blurb about the Lafayette scandal, and about the recent conviction of Soong on tax evasion charges.

MT: Why was the content about Soong's involvement in the Lafayette scandal deleted? It's a shame that this page is basically a highly pro-Soong account of Soong. I'll be reinstating that information as soon as possible.

FB: Please read Official Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space. These claims by Dumas are dubious and made in a tabloid newspaper. MT, you earlier claimed Dumas fingered Soong in French courts. Where is the quality source? Where is the hard evidence? Just read the highly biased article by Taipei Times. They had to change the article just to avoid being sued.

MT: That's ridiculous. Soong's supporters have already conceded that the KMT received the money when they argued that Dumas must have been mistaken in who the money was given too -- implicitly conceding that money was given. Dumas' claims were made publicly and he has not been forced to retract, nor has he been sued. Fact is, he was telling the truth as everyone knows and a trail of dead bodies confirms. There is nothing "unsourced or poorly sourced" about a public confession made to a newspaper. The money was confirmed by French customs documents according to the testimony of another public official, also made publicly. Also Le Figaro is not a "tabloid" -- it's a conservative paper with a long upper class connection.

Finally, it is totally ridiculous to deny this when in fact Wiki has an extensive article on the affair in French. Have you rushed over there to make certain that it doesn't mention any living individuals? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_fr%C3%A9gates_de_Ta%C3%AFwan

The fact is that any article on Soong's life needs to mention this claim, as well as the other evidence. About the only thing right in your claim is that it wasn't made in court. Mea culpa. Is there any way to agree on language to express it? How about

"In an interview with Le Figaro in 2003 former French Foreign Minister claimed that the "secretary-general" of the KMT was the recipient of a $400 million kickback from the government of France, payment to the KMT for the sale of Lafayette frigates to Taiwan. The secretary general of the KMT at the time of the sale was James Soong. Soong's supporters deny that Soong was the recipient, and argue that Dumas did not understand the governmental structure of the KMT or of Taiwan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.162.132.222 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relations[edit]

Is James Soong related to the Soong sisters? David Cannon 11:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not in the least. Unless you go back like 100 generations... It is a fact that the Soong Sistes' family originally was not even the Soongs, but the Hans. See Charlie Soong. --Menchi 11:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Menchi, for clarifying this matter for me. David Cannon 01:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused by the amount he allegedy stole. The article mentions the total being 12 million dollars, divided into individual banking accounts of his relatives. Yet, one sentence later, it states that there was 6 billion in his son's. That doesn't seem to add up.

I've changed the 6 billion to 6 million on the assumption that it was a typo, but I could be wrong. -anonymous


PFP does favor unification[edit]

The idea of cross strait unification obviously appeared in PFP 2004 NATIONAL COMMITTEE presidential speech (親民黨第一屆全國委員會閉幕典禮主席致詞全文) for many times. I guess they have no reason trying to hide it. Instead, they conveyed their idea of unification clearly and cordially to the public. Based on Soon'g speech, we really should not distort the fact and deprive PFP of the credential as a strong proponent for unification.

1)　此外，楚瑜希望....能重新整合成統一的中國，讓人民感受到尊嚴、驕傲與自豪。2)　除了「一中屋頂」，我們更主張「兩岸兩席」。親民黨的「兩岸兩席」概念是以「一個中國」為前提，.....親民黨的兩岸兩席，則是朝向「合」的方向發展。3)我們盼望兩岸和平....大陸也變得更開放自由民主時，兩岸能自然走向整合或統一。[1]

The quote above conveniently omitted important sections of the full quote provided by the PFP 2004 NATIONAL COMMITTEE presidential speech to support the claim "PFP favors unification". However, this is not the case.

1) 楚瑜希望在台灣寶島所推行的民主政治，不僅能展現出優質的民主，更期盼在未來影響中國大陸的民主走向；到那一天，能重新整合成統一的中國，讓人民感受到尊嚴、驕傲與自豪

It aims to promote democracy and hopes to influence China to become democratic. Until that day comes, China and Taiwan can then reunite

Full translation of PFP political viewpoint below: (http://www.pfp.org.tw/article_show.asp?id=104)

In addition to the "One Chinese Roof", we propose "cross-strait two seats." PFP "cross-strait two seats" concept is based on the "one China" premise, to promote cross-strait differences between two seats respectively, the participation of non-political international organizations to ensure Taiwan's 23 million people's living, security, and dignity. This and Mr. Lee Teng-hui advocated "two states theory" are different. Because "two states theory" not only violates the Constitution of the Republic, but also the idea of ​​separation of consciousness, not only conducive to cross-strait peace, but will impact the balance of the current situation on both sides. In other words, the two-state theory aims to "separate", the People First Party's "cross-strait two seats", aims to "unite". Therefore, the People First Party advocate, whether WTO or WHO, World Bank, IMF, should let Taiwan join, so that Taiwan people are not suppressed, confident, have more living space, to the public safety and peace of mind protection. Chu Yu believes that only through allowing the two sides to jointly participate in the international community, will end cross-strait relations' "sometimes tense, sometimes ease" cycle of instability and reduce the possibility of cross-strait military conflict, in order to ensure the Taiwan Strait Peace.

Vandalism/Censorship[edit]

I have restored what user 206.15.185.25 deleted. This user also vandalised a different page (one on my watchlist). What he appears to have done here is to censor/vandalise paragraphs without reasonable explanation in talk.--Toddy1 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The page was moved back to its original location as it was moved without consensus or prior discussion.--Jiang (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"conservative"[edit]

I thought that "more conservative" means the PFP was a "radical right" party. luuva (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?[edit]

Can the person who tagged this for neutrality please indicate which sections or aspects they are referring to? DrIdiot (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag. Kaihsu (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette scandal , Suisse secrets[edit]

I see that Lafayette scandal and hints of bribery were in the past removed from this airbrushed BLP. I will re add it to the page with a reliable source. I warn those out there, who repeatedly remove sourced information, because it sheds an unpleasant light on Mr Soong.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this scandal seems like it could use its own page as well, if anyone has the energy to do so... DrIdiot (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Soong&oldid=1205363857"