Talk:Rex 84

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moved from Main Article Page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "The potential of a round up of targeted persons....." and "these types of readiness exercises take place all the time...". For what? To protect/preserve whom? They only exist to protect the then reigning administration and the bureaucracy from whatever ails it. To juxtapose two such thoughts like there's nothing to worry about it amazing. Funny how during 9/11 the Washington brass was the first to run? If these excercises are ever needed, and whatever hardware exists to pen people up to such a large extent isn't for the benefit of anyone but the government. I'm not a conspiracy buff by any means, but it stands that if one believes that such "plans" are for the good of anyone but the power elite and their continuation, should a catastrophe strike, is naive.
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)
thread_title: Looking for more info

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cryptome Link 

message: 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)
thread_title: POV Check

message: 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 . Also see  for the direct link to the picture.
--El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 18:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Postsecret

message: See if this article accurate: Saturday, May 10, 2008, Bush Replaced REX84 With New Martial Law EO Ted Twietmeyer
www.thepeoplesvoice.org - In May 2007, Bush signed executive new orders NSDP51 and HSDP20 to replace REX84. The older order REX84 was an older directive to establish martial law in the event of a national emergency. Everything done in government is done for a reason, and these two new orders are no exception.http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/04/17/p24815 Carol Moore 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to find a WP:RS to support that statement, and you'll probably need to make sure that you attribute it, because that is an opinion not a fact (he didn't technically replace REX-84 with them, although they do serve a very similar purpose). I'll get around to searching for one once I've wrapped a few things up elsewhere. Note that I'm not saying that your statement shouldn't be included -- I think it should, if you can find a reliable source making such a claim. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Please be civil. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Please be civil. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Exec Orders supplanted this one

message: please show me the actual paper that was written in 1970 at the army war college, or at least provide me more than one source that mentions it's existence. please provide some kind of reliable source for a number of the allegations in this article. the basic facts have apparently been intermingled with things that have no verifiable source, and a lot of it is linked to sources that are not reliable. Decora (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I took all your alleged and allegedlies out. The proper way to deal with unsourced or unreliable info is to ASK FOR SOURCES. Stop crapping all over the article, and use the tools that are provided. Do NOT put the allegedlies back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.111.138 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: I got rid of a few sources. I believe that one from Global Research shouldn't be used because well, in a sense its a conspiracy site. From its about page: "Barely a few days later [after 9/11] Global Research had become a major news source on the New World Order and Washington's "war on terrorism"." The Phrase "new world order" is often used by conspiracy theorists. A little bit later it says "In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on the "unspoken truth," something that reminds me of the "truthers" that try to point out that 9/11 was an inside job. Later they write that "...Global Research operates on a shoe string budget compared to the well-endowed establishment think tanks...[like the] powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)" which makes me think its a little more conspiracy-like as some conspiracy theorists have negative views of the CFR (they think its part of a larger conspiracy to solve a world government or something like that.
Also, I deleted some text about how exercises are occurring now. I think sourcing Peter Dale Scott is a bit questionable as well. I have some words to put it into question
*"This brings us to the position of Peter Dale Scott, whom Fenster identifies specifically as a conspiracy theorist. Scott argues empirically that the events of 9/11 and after demonstrate the “deep politics” that have been expanding in U.S. government operations since the end of World War II...What differentiates the conspiracy analysis of Peter Dale Scott, in comparison to the features of conspiracy theory delineated and rejected by analysts like Barkun and Fenster, is that Scott does not presume a totalizing narrative." 1
Here's another source of this:
*"Peter Dale Scott...is a long time conspiracy theorist and this is one of the best books on the subject - So read 'em and weep."2
and another:
*"His affiliation with so-called "conspiracy theorists" such as David Ray Griffin may mislead readers into associating Scott with the stigma of the "9/11 Truth" movement, but this is hardly the kind of hysterical and paranoid alarmism you might expect to find from some of that movement's high priests."3
You can look for yourself here 4
I just think these things sort of put his ideas into question.
I searched Publiceye.org 5 and found that it seems anti-conspiracy theorist with these words:
*"Shortly after the Barruel book was published, conspiracy theories about the Illuminati Freemasons were mixed with antisemitism in Europe. This confluence took place much later in the US."6
*"Griffin’s book [A New Pearl Harbor] reflects a relentless disregard of substantial evidence from multiple sources that contradict the claims he is making. Griffin repeatedly uses classic Fallacies of Logic in his presentation rendering whole sections of the book refutable on this basis alone." 7
Also there are titles like:
*"Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating"
*"What's Wrong with Conspiracism?"
What so Conspiracy sites are bad but Government offical sites are reliable even tho the Government has lied time and time before and uses Propaganda? --24.94.251.19 (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes and suggestions 

message: Found this through the article on the FEMA conspiracy theory. Scanning the page, it looks like this has some pretty serious problems. I see multiple sources that don't actually mention "rex 84" (the CSPAN link, for example, which looks related only because a user titled a clip "North being questioned on REX 84" while the clip doesn't actually mention it), lousy sources like Grand Theft World (which sure looks like a far-right podcast to counter the "globalist agenda"), a course syllabus, etc. There's a line of apparent original research wrapping up the legacy section... 
It's surprising how little there is about this subject (named as such, at least) visible through a google search. On one hand, since it's older than the web, that's sort of unsurprising, but on the other hand given how it's been taken up by conspiracy theorists you'd think there would be something more out there... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like most of the problematic material was added in a string of edits by an anonymous user. Still, the older version still includes original research (connecting the ADEX list to this subject, and relying on subtext (or the user-generated label) for the cspan clip, which is produced in its entirety. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems