Talk:S-Plan

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish republicanism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rewritten

I re-wrote the piece to include more details and context. the detail isnt exhaustive, I might add more but it means going through every newspaper for 1939 as only Stephans book details some of the attacks as i have here.

Check the comments I put in for the wikipedia entry "Operation Artur"- I believe Operation Artur doesn't exist which is why I removed it from this entry. If you know better cite a source.

Most of the details on the attacks comes from Stephan, but he misses some, and gets the event dates mixed up with the publication date of the papers on others. the detail on arrests comes from The Times- I didnt include all arrests reported, mostly for first half of 1939 and only those with large or significant arms seizures to give an idea of how fast the IRA teams were rounded up/what weapons they were using.

I think this entry should be renamed to S-Plan. S-Plan is what it is mostly concerned with now. the people making the attacks referred to it as S-Plan. The british referred to it as the bomb outrages. Where the sabotage campaign monkier came from I dont know- I think it is misleading and doesnt make sense in terms of historical facts of the period. can someone explain where it came from?

Fluffy999 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it to S-Plan.

Fluffy999 23:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fluffy999,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Great to see someone else with interest in the history of the IRA. Might I ask you to try and consult with people who have also worked on articles on the history of the IRA (e.g. Sabotage Campaign) on any renaming suggestions. I disagree with the change from Sabotage Campaign to S-Plan. Many leading republicans (Ruairí Ó Brádaigh for one) refer to the campaign as the Sabotage Campaign. Indeed, the S-Plan and the Campaign are two different issues. The plan was the plan, the campaign the actual campaign. I understand you're new to Wikipedia but the principle here is that articles should use the names most commonly used for events. --Damac 08:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Yes I left a note on the discussion page for the article (isn't this where discussion belongs?)

I understand the problem of the S-Plan and the republican understanding of it as the Sabotage Campaign. What I tried to do in re-writing the article was show that at the time of the events and, (most importantly), to the people involved, the attacks in Britain were known as the S-Plan. I do think however, that militant republicanism's understanding of the S-Plan as the Sabotage Campaign falls within the history of militant republicanism, not facts of the time period.

IRA teams were following the S-Plan- a plan the IRA Army Council issued to them. The then IRA Chief of Staff asked for idea's on attacks in Britain to be formulated and this is what was circulated to IRA teams as the plan of attack. IRA volunteers were detained in Britain carrying the S-Plan. IRA referred to events in Britain as the "S-plan" in their contact with Abwehr during the period. These are the historical facts.

If you're saying the IRA Army Council distributed the S-Plan as 1 part of a wider strategy called "The Sabotage Campaign"- then its something to cite. I've only catalogued some of the attacks and most of that was from newspaper reports of the day. If you want to say that the IRA deviated from the S-Plan to the extend that it became only a piece of paper then thats fine- but when I compare Stephan's description of the S-Plan to the events 139-1940 I don't see any deviation.

Historians tend to paint the S-Plan as a complete disaster and you will see the author of the S-Plan agrees with them. However, I don't offer the reader this interpretation via the title, or any comment in the article, nor should I under wiki rules about impartiality. I've stuck to the facts. It IS noteworthy that republicanism regards the acts carried out via the S-Plan as the "Sabotage Campaign" but only in so much as the term is loaded with meaning for later generations of republicanism, not the people of the time who carried out the S-Plan.

So since the attacks made as part of the S-Plan have become known as the Sabotage Campaign by "many republicans" within the republican tradition- that use can/should be cited. However, I think I did manage to point out that in the article when I mentioned that it has been known as the Sabotage Campaign, and even the England Campaign in some circles and that the S-Plan attacks provide a context in which the 1970's PIRA campaign took place.

A search for "Sabotage Campaign" now redirects to S-Plan. I don't mind if you want to rename it back to Sabotage Campaign (IRA) and have searches for S-Plan redirect to it. Its enough that both "many republicans" as well as students of the period reading about the S-Plan in their history books can find the article.

Fluffy999 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fluffy999"

Second Dáil

You inserted inaccurate information overwriting an accurate contribution I made. The rearranging you did now makes the article factually incorrect.

The IRA army council did not issue a statement via the Wolfe Tone Weekly- Sean Russell did. Cite a source for that change because I can cite one saying the statement was signed by him, not the Army Council and not on behalf of the Army Council.

You also stripped out the entire context of what happened and link to Irish Republic claiming the people mentioned, all die hard anti-treaty, would recognise it. This was in December 1938, if they didn't recognise what was in effect a 26 county Republic in 1938. What makes you think they would recognise it in 2006?

And guess what? They transferred their authority, not "their powers" as you claim. Cite a source. And before you ask; No, "powers" in the context of Government doesn't equal "authority".

My contribution explains their motivation, and actions all in 1 sentence. Instead, as you blundered through, you replace it with longwinded TRIPE which is inaccurate, distorting, and near unreadable.

I'll change it back again tomorrow. PhD in History *LOL* ((unsigned: 03:20, 1 May 2006 User:Fluffy999)

Russell did not issue the statement. The statement was issued by the members of the Second Dáil who believed they were the legitimate authority of the Irish Republic (NOT the Republic of Ireland). Read the statement issued by the seven TDs of the rump Dáil and note the terminology and language they used. Also take note that the Wolfe Tone Weekly was publshed by Brian O'Higgins (one of the seven TDs) and therefore a mouthpiece for the republican legitimatists of the Second Dáil and not Russell.

In effort to shorten the piece and to avoid duplication, I removed the names of the seven signatories, as these now appear (with the 1938 statement) and the end of the article on the Second Dáil. The names are not that relevant to the article in question as none of the seven were members of the IRA in 1938 nor where they involved in the planning or execution of the S-Plan.--Damac 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye

I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia but this article is pretty much finished :) Thank you. Fluffy999 13:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence in "Immediate context"

I'm not very familiar with the subject matter of this article. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the first sentence in "Immediate context" should read "Following a power struggle within the IRA during the mid 1930s, Seán Russell was reinstated to the IRA in April...", rather than "Following a power struggle within the IRA during the mid 1930s, Seán Russell reinstated to the IRA in April...". The sentence doesn't seem to make sense otherwise. I will so edit, next visit, if there are no objections or corrections. Shirt58 11:24, 01 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections or corrections, I so did, about 10:56 UTC, 18 October 2006 --Shirt58 12:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Powers Act 1939

There seems to be only one Emergency Powers Act 1939 and that was enacted in September 1939 in Ireland. How could there be one passed in January 1940? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.227.75 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool bomb, 27 August 1939

This needs a proper reference if anyone has access to a newspaper archive? (I cant cite 'my dad', or the few internet blogs that mention this. My dad's recollection is that there were no casualties. He was close to the explosion. Feel free to delete if this cant be properly sourced.) Gilgamesh4 (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on S-Plan. 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:

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) 21:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

IRA.Coventry.attack.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]