Talk:Rex 84

Moved from Main Article Page

This sounds like an urban legend, especially with the use of the orwellian '1984' figure. The link below doesn't seem authoritative. Anyone have links to actual government documents verifying the existence and details of this plan? --Domanite 15:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• U.S. Concentration Camps FEMA and the REX 84 program (And you'll find references to a camp at 34534 116th Street East, Palmdale, CA which Google satellite images shows to be nothing.)

• • Can someone hit up a library and find a published source for this? There seems to be plenty of internet sources, but they tend to smack of "conspiracy theory." Kerowyn 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

NB: I have added the disputed tag to the article to reflect the above comment when I transplanted it, not because I have an opinion on the matter one way or the other. Abb3w 16:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

more here:

http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-14.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland6.html

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/american-concentation-camps/

Mikewarren 20:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The use of '1984', as referenced, has no Orwellian connotations, it is simply the year in which Jack Anderson broke the story on FEMA creating new legislation that would allow them to suspend the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. in times of 'national emergency' (drafted by Oliver North). It was brought up (briefly) during the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings by Jack Brooks (then a Democratic Senator from Texas) who was then promptly stifled by Republican Senator Daniel Inouye, purportedly saying "We need to not talk about this, some things are secret and should be talked in chambers"... Anyone have transcripts of those hearings so we can put this 'dispute' to bed? --Decepty 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a video of portions of the Iran-Contra Hearings in which the above noted exchange between Oliver North, Jack Brooks, and Daniel Inouye took place. When Jack Brooks asked Oliver North about the REX84 planning that took place in North's office, Inouye first told Brooks that it was not relevent to the discussion, and when Brooks said he thought it was, Inouye then said that if so, the discussion of that issue (REX84) should be held in closed executive (i.e. secret) session.

Mike Ruff 08:27, 10 September 2005

Domanite's comment seems purely speculative; after all 1984 was the actual year of the "readiness exercise (REX)" and not just a disturbingly appropos book title. There are a number of more recent articles mentioning Rex 84 quoted at the right-wing site Free Republic (this was in 1999; the freepers' concern seems to have been that Prez Clinton would imprison THEM as part of a liberal milennium plot to usher in a world government, lol): http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37eb164263a4.htm --Elizdelphi 04:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of the claims and most of the links for this page are dubious claims from well-known conspiracy theory websites with little credibility. There are serious articles on Rex 84 (the Miami Herald article is a good example), but the rest is nonsense. I will try to find some credible articles. The facts are bad enough. It was a planning exercise for suppressing civil unrest.--Cberlet 01:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=277826260716604258 heres a video of the camp, shouldnt fema camps be a different article?

Looking for more info

I've googled for stuff, but it looks like the "conspiracy sites" are the only places that have anything, and I know most here will want something from a "reputable" (read: corporate) source. Abovetopsecret.com has a link to some detailed info, and I found rotten.com's article about it as well. I read a lot about this particular conspiracy a number of years ago, and it seems like a *lot* of information about it has disappeared since 9/11...which of course, is probably entirely a coincidence. ;-)

Petrus4 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I heard they had capacity to 30 million detained

Nonsense. Conspiracist twaddle. There are several reliable published sources about the Readiness Exercise, Rex 84, and thousands of whacko conspiracy websites making these types of absurd claims. The facts are bad enough. The feds regularly stage exercises to test their capacity to fulfill assigned tasks. The potential of a round up of targeted persons during a declared "national emergency" is a civil liberties nightmare, and we all should be aware of the potential. But these types of readiness exercises take place all the time. The fetish of Rex 84 is misplaced. What we can prove is happening now is bad enough. Conspiracism takes real problems and disempowers people trying to organize to confront them.--Cberlet 18:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lot of references in US gov't documents and official sources with pertaining excerpts from google book search here: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Uye&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22rex+84+alpha%22&sa=N&tab=np

-Scanlyze 23:45, 09 January 2007 (UTC)

Cryptome Link

I have added a link to information about Operation Garden Plot, which was actually the parent operation affiliated with Rex 84. If anyone feels that the link is not a sufficiently orthodox source and wishes to remove it, I would respectfully request that the information linked to be thoroughly examined first. I believe that the article cites its' sources, and offers valuable background information concerning its' subject.--Petrus4 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's avoid conspiracist nonsense. Garden Plot was the name of a master contingency plan. Lantern Spike, for example, was a readiness exercise years before Rex84. The Frank Morales article reprinted by Cryptome is basically sound, but makes a few assertions that muddy the issue. Garden Plot was the military contingency plan, Rex 84 was a FEMA exercise. They are related, but it is not accurate to say that Rex 84 was a readiness exercise for the parent "operation" Garden Plot. --Cberlet 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning labels

I would also like to have this page flagged with a warning regarding neutrality. This article sounds like it came straight out of the tin-foil hat wearing crowd.

This afternoon I heard a talk show host quote directly from this article. He didn't bother to mention that it is merely a stub or that its scholarship is nominal at best. Can it be flagged more prominently regarding the lack of citations and the lack of neutrality in its language?

I'm new to Wiki editing and don't know how to go about it. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Lanternshine 04:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana Reynolds is a scholar who just happened to publish her article in a small alternative publication. The Miami Herald is hardly a nominal source. I cut out a rumor post and tweaked the language, but the basic assertions on this page are easily documented. We can't help it if conspiracy theorists take the facts and hyperbolize them, but this page on Wikipedia has been a reliable source of information on this topic for quite some time, and has resisted attempts by conspiracy theorists to add material that could not be verified. I suggest you read the underlying articel by Reynolds more carefully.--Cberlet 18:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• 'Diana Reynolds is a scholar who just happened to publish her article in a small alternative publication.' — Is there any substantive support for that statement? Has she been published elsewhere? What is her educational background? Anything at all to attest to her alleged scholar status?

• 'The Miami Herald is hardly a nominal source.' — Indeed. But it is very lonely here, and it is only a copy found in another less than biased source.

• 'I suggest you read the underlying articel by Reynolds more carefully.' — I read enough of her discourse to realize that it was extremely biased and unsuitable for citation.

Had I dared present either this Wiki article or any of Ms. Reynolds's work to my old freshman English professor, my only expectation would have been an "F." This article is poorly cited and far from scholarly. Just about anyone can write just about anything and plop it on the Internet — that doesn't make it true or scholarly, and it most assuredly does not make the writer a scholar.

Be it known, I'm not necessarily disputing the WIki article, only its scholarship and bias.

I'm still hoping to receive some helpful and useful advice from other Wikipedians, but if that doesn't occur, perhaps I should simply follow the recommendation from the Wiki help pages to "be bold" and jump right in and make the changes myself.

I'd prefer some gentle instruction, but will go the sink or swim route if need be.

Lanternshine 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reynolds' article: Covert Action Information Bulletin, #33 (Winter 1990)

SOURCE: http://www.publiceye.org/liberty/fema/Fema_6.html (and, of course, the original publication)

"Just about anyone can write just about anything and plop it on the Internet". Yes, unless the Internet (as you know it) doesn't exist yet, and won't for about four years.

Re: "This article is poorly cited and far from scholarly."

"The original article contained 33 footnotes." Did you read them? Do they check out?

Re: the Miami Herald article being "only a copy found in another less than biased source"

Do you mean "less-than-reliable"? The citation is sufficient to find the original in paper and microfilm. If the blogger's copy is an erroneous transcription, then you should indeed pull the link to it. (Maybe there is a link to the Miami Herald website with a free copy.) But verify first.

Overall, what is the bias that you detect with the Wikipedia article?

--RealityBase 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Check

If you are too lazy to go to a library and check out the printed sources for this entry, then you have no business claiming this article is not properly cited, or that the underlying articles are not solid, or demanding a POV check. I have read the hard copy for both articles, I have checked the footnotes for the Reynold's article. This specific entry version is generally accurate and NPOV. Get over it.

If you are a conspiracy theorist trying to slyly insert cites to whacko marginal websites to extend this entry beyond what the verifiable facts can support...please go away.

If you actually have read the Miami Herald article, the Reynolds article, or other serious articles in reliable publications about Rex 84...welcome and please edit carefully.--Cberlet 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Postsecret

I don't know how reliable a source people consider this, but (for the next week at least) there's someone who (anonymously) claims to have been involved in the building of a Rex 84 internment camp on [1]. Also see [2] for the direct link to the picture. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 18:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider PostSecret a reliable source at all. BTW, I read it every week because it is interesting, but it is not scholarly and certainly not something to cite in a WP article.

The incidence of Rex 84 in Postsecret, with the text of the postcard, could be mentioned as a pop culture reference, and possible extension of conspiracy theorists. Mooyah 03:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)