Talk:Fenn treasure/Archive 1

Fox "News" references should be replaced
The references and citations to Fox "News" web sites should be replaced with suitable references to legitimate news outlets. Wikipedia attempts to provide solid references, and Fox "News" is not considered reliable. Damotclese (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please be sure to discuss reverts before committinbg them
User:ScrapIronIV Please discuss reverts before performing them. Claiming something is "promotional" without discussing your concerns is not acceptable behavior. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Read WP:PROMO - Wikipedia is not here to promote this hazardous venture. Also, read WP:NOTGUIDE - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Also read WP:ELNO as Wikipedia does not permit the use of external links in the body of an article. Finally, please read WP:BRD - You were Bold, I Reverted, and now it is up to YOU to Discuss why you think this material should be included.  Failure to follow due process is disruptive. I am reverting to status quo ante and it is up to you to persuade the community that these additions belong in the article.  Scr ★ pIron IV 16:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop making undiscussed edits, the references and citations you made are not "promotions." If you want to pretend that such references are "prmotions" then you need to remove all of them, including the book. You are being DISRUPTIVE! Stop it. TrainsOnTime (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to deal with this, User:BiologistBabe if you have time would you get an admin to solve this problem, please? Damotclese (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Love the meatpuppetry here. I made no undiscussed edits - the ADDITIONS were undiscussed, not their subsequent removal per WP:BRD. I'll let it sit here for a time, why you try to explain why this article is an exception to WP:ELNO and WP:PROMO. If you can, that is. Not to mention the violation of WP:CANVASS  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there was a discussion here.
 * I've removed the convention link because it seemed to promote an event that was ancillary to the article's topic.
 * The documentary link I merged into the section about books. It doesn't seem too promote-y if it's treated equally with all the further reading suggestions of the book section, and referenced in the normal way. ApLundell (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

, I don't know what you and are playing at here but I've removed BiologistBabe's totally inappropriate post and am formally warning you about canvassing. Don't do that again. --Neil N  talk to me 15:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We will allow BiologistBabe to decide whether the offending editor needs to be suspended, I don't know what game you're playing at NeilN, but the removal of legitimate references and citations by an abusive editor is not what we do here in Wikipedia, if needed we will have to see if you need to be sanctioned as well for disruptive behavior. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BiologistBabe is not an administrator on Wikipedia. I've warned her about implying she is one. And I suggest you back off the "abusive editor" claim pretty quick per WP:NPA. Stick to discussing content. --Neil N  talk to me 17:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Fatalities from unprepared hikers
The article notes that three people are claimed to have died while searching for the treasure, however I thought it should be noted that the actual number is not known. Not every injured hiker searching for the treasure gets notable in any news outlet, and not all who do get noted get added to the extant article, plus some people who have no business walking in the outdoors have reportedly claimed to have been searching for the treasure when in fact they got out of their cars, walked along the side of a road, and were injured -- there was a report about someone in Texas getting struck while crossing a busy highway who claimed he was searching for the treasure.

So I noted "at least three" but the article's commentary on known fatalities needs some work. Maybe it should say "three notable fatalities" with text added to note that there is no way for accurate information on who was actually searching when they killed themselves.

Also the extant article really should link to external references and citations on how to hike safely. I work in the outdoor recreation arena (as well as within the infectious diseases arena,) and we see a lot of injuries and fatalities in deserts and wooded spaces from people who have zero history and zero experience suddenly deciding to walk out somewhere. The phenomena is not a treasure hunting phenomena, it's a global phenomena where stupidity and television myths (so-called "reality shows" and others) leave people ignorant, stupid, and believing what they saw on television is real, leaving them with the belief they can just walk in to a desert or mountains without working their way up to it. Damotclese (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Went Missing
"The most recent was Randy Bilyeu ....." should be changed: he is no longer the most recent.--Desertphile (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Treasure Value
What's the point of this edit war?

I agree that value estimates of the treasure are pretty dubious, but what makes the HuffPo article worse than normal in this regard?

Alternatively, what's so great about the HuffPo article that it's worth fighting over to keep it in? ApLundell (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While the HuffPo article has a title which states $5 million, it states in the body of the article that nobody - not even the individual who supposedly buried this "treasure" - knows the value. It is a blog, and the author is speculating, without source, and is not an expert in this field.  Fails WP:RS and verification.  Scr ★ pIron IV 14:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2017
Fenn has not removed clues to the treasure. The linked article simply states that he is considering doing something. There is no mention of clue removal. Please remove this entire line or change it to reflect the facts stated in the article: "Pressured by the New Mexico State police, Fenn removed clues linked to these two deaths in an effort to make the treasure hunt safer." Aelorion (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

April Fool joke
Just a heads up: the alleged finding of the treasure was the subject of an April Fools joke in the High Country News:



Please do not add it to the article as fact. TJRC (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 June 2019
Please remove this link from External Links: "Fennsolve, the solution to the quest with independent proofs" It has been added by Bje1128 and has nothing officially to do with the Fenn treasure hunt. It is his own private, crazy page. Jakopenhagen (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 20:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jakopenhagen, I'm not sure what you mean by "officially" or "crazy." It is my private page; that does not make it a "crazy" page. Could you define or reference these "official" sources for the Fenn treasure hunt, such as a page by Fenn about the hunt? Fenn has a page linked at the site (properly), but not recently updated, and not one about this topic.

Bje1128 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "External links" sections of articles are not used for links to individual contributors' own web sites, especially not when they're being used to support a contributor's own original research, which is forbidden (see my comments above too). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Noted. Bje1128 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.34.163 (talk)

Now that the dust has settled....
We should take a look at changes that have survived the day's events.

Here is a comparison of changes from yesterday, to right now.

It looks like we lost a paragraph sourced to an interview. (However the source for the interview itself is very sketchy. Do we have a better source for that?)

We lost a quote sourced to ABC news.

...And we've gained a few links to https://mysteriouswritings.com which strikes me as a bit dubious from an RS point of view. The source doesn't say much that isn't already in the link to Hemisphere magazine. So I think it's safe to remove it.

None of this is urgent enough that we need to request admins to fix it right away, but I think we should think about changing this stuff back when the protection wears off. ApLundell (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Lummifilm (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)The author claims that he has found the location of the treasure and has slanted the page to try to give readers a negative image of Forrest Fenn, the originator of the chase. In fact, there is no evidence in the author's writing that the treasure was ever at the location described. It appears that this author is simply upset because he cannot find the treasure and has decided to create a page claiming the treasure's location is known even though the treasure was not there.

The page contains no proof of it's main claim...that the author has found the location of the chest... Keeping this page up in its original form is misleading. I have exchanged email with the author who claims the photo on the page is evidence that this is where the chest should be found...but his evidence proves nothing of the kind.

I don't believe this authors claim is substantiated.Lummifilm (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)



I don't recall the ABC News quote and regret its inadvertent loss.

Lummifilm (talk), I am on the record today, as you well know, as having upgraded the page's presentation of Fenn including by specifically deleting the accusation of trafficking in forged artworks. Your other statements have the force of personal opinion. Regardless of the age and popularity of your blog or your relationship with Fenn, this is not the Dal Neitzel quest. Like me, you are a searcher with a private webpage. Yours has a different purpose from mine, and I do respect your page and its purpose, but your page is not "official" or authoritative even if widely patronized, and I ask that you respect mine on the same basis. For my purpose I require only a static webpage, because clearly, I have objectively new material and do believe [as a public opinion, which as this is a talk page, I will point out is a fact to me] that I have solved the quest. I have only ever gone to one place, not dozens, and my search is over. Bje1128 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Lummifilm, it's in the dif ApLundell posted. It's not actually lost, and can always be reinserted.  Orville1974  (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In general, as a disinterested editor (I don't know anything about Fenn's Treasure) who happened upon this article during the flurry of activity today, please keep WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:COI, and WP:EDITWARRING in mind. This talk page should be used to build WP:Consensus whenever editors disagree about what should or shouldn't be inserted into/retracted from the article.  Orville1974  (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)



Below is the ABC News URL. I ask that it not be speculated on WP that the treasure is in YNP as the YNP authorities clearly officially (officially, on their webpages) discourage overinvestment in that perception. Thus, please do not restore the previous text focused on YNP and please do restore the URL or link more responsibly.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/people-continue-seek-reported-hidden-treasure-rocky-mountains/story?id=51766060

YNP link

https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/forrest-fenn-hidden-treasure-hunt

[update]

One more comment. From courtesy, I want to thank everyone for their contributions today, including Lummifilm (talk) who has made key, respected contributions to the quest, particularly its communications profile, for years at his dynamic website. My website has a static purpose and offers open contact but does not seek comments, followers, or interactive dialogue at the website. It wouldn't add value for us to have the same philosophy anyway, so we can coexist. We have these private websites not because we are know-it-alls but because there is no other means of productively communicating about the quest.

Everyone connected with the quest would like it to proceed and end positively, including by someone getting the treasure at some point. Logically, the quest can end three ways: by someone finding a treasure in the outdoors (a *self-validated* solution), or by Fenn awarding it (a *Fenn-validated* solution), or open-endedly never, with people forever hopelessly questing for something that isn't found possibly because it isn't there. These three are mutually exclusive and the last is the most negative. So by whatever way and whatever follows, let's just hope it's not the third.

Bje1128 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing I'll add here is that what the YNP authorities officially discourage is of little relevance here (other than, perhaps, documenting that discouragement). Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the balance of what reliable sources say, not what external groups (or individual editors) want to be said. And while we as individuals might hope for a good outcome to this treasure hunt, such hopes are none of Wikipedia's business - an encyclopedia just reflects the balance of published reliable sources, and should not try to direct that balance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement
I think the history section can be fleshed out some more. The treasure hunt has been a part of popular culture going on 9 years now, and there's been notable activity in that time. Pretty sure there's been more references in pop culture that can be added. Also, details about Forrest Fenn's career can be added, keeping WP:NOTE as a guiding principle. The books/external links sections in particular needs to be watched for spam. Please let's also avoid the word "quest" going forward :) Enjoy. --JeremyWasHere (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Proof that the treasure was really buried?
There is no proof that the treasure was buried. Fenn provided photos of his treasure to news agencies, who corroborate his story that the treasure was buried. So, are we to take this man's word as fact? Nobody knows if Fenn really buried his treasure or not. This his a claim, but not at all a verifiable fact. Every other article covering a speculative or alleged topic that I have come across uses language such as "is said to be" or "allegedly", so why does this article posit an unverifiable event as fact? Surely it isn't because Fenn's fans (an aggressive cult of personality known as the Fennsters) are watching this article like hawks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amriel of Askr (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we take the word of the reliable sources that we have, not the editorialising of individual contributors. If you want to make the case that the treasure wasn't buried, you'll have to find an equally reliable source that states that. As for your snide insinuation about other editors, for my part I know nothing of any of the background here beyond the sources I've had to look at to see if your unsourced commentary had any grounds. I'm merely a part of the cult of Wikipedia editors who don't like folks trampling all over the conventions we've established over many years. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ramen to that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ramen to that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuit
I've just removed the following, recently added content:

None of the sources given make the statement that Fenn's claims do not hold up to fact-checking. This appears to be pure original research and synthesis by. In addition, the "Roundup Motel Dude Motor Inn" source does not support the text "was built for owner Roger Beattie". I'm very concerned by the recent edits and I ask ẞœ to justify their contention about the origin of the motel. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up in greater detail when I have computer access, but I share RexxS' concerns about OR/SYNTH. It's clear that this "research" was conducted by a Wikipedia editor. A simple newspapers.com search returns a number of pre-1977 articles that mention the Dude Motel. Although they're not sufficient to confirm or deny the claims (which shouldn't even be mentioned here without BLP-complaint sourcing), they help illustrate why we don't use circumstantial primary-source evidence. –dlthewave ☎ 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I again removed the same paragraph. The editor assumed that the Dude and Roundup were a single entity (as they operate today). The Dude Motel and the Roundup were two separate entities later merged into a single business. Tax records from Gallatin County note that the Dude Motel is a 16 room motel built in 1964. You can see the record here: http://gis.gallatin.mt.gov/common/parcel_information.aspx?tab=geocode&taxID=RRG16667&geocodeid=06006234102060000.


 * A story from the Great Falls Tribune verifies that Ronald Reagan attended the Governors Conference at the Dude Motel in 1967. Interestingly, in a 2008 letter to the editor Fenn gives an anecdote about Reagan losing his key and breaking in through a window; this incident was mentioned in the Billings Gazette soon after it happened, but with Montana governor Tim Babcock as the subject. There's probably an interesting story in there somewhere, but it doesn't seem to sourced well enough for inclusion here and we absolutely shouldn't be using these sources to call Fenn's honesty into question. I'm just sharing this to show that A) the claim that the hotel couldn't have hosted a conference in 1967 is utter bollocks and B) there's a good reason why we don't use government records for these claims since they often don't tell the entire story. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave] ☎ 03:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The following is a violation of our WP:BLPPRIMARY policy:

Per policy, Do use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. , do not add this content again, and do discuss any concerns here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for taking a firm line on BLP violations. I must admit that I left that sentence in, as I felt it was borderline acceptable under our WP:PRIMARY policy (linked from WP:BLPPRIMARY) which allows limited use of primary sources with care: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.". I considered that it might be acceptable to use a court record to support the assertion that a summons was issued and served. Nevertheless, the context is always crucial, and I'm happy to defer to your reasoning here, as you're more familiar with the article's background than I am. --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Books and Documentaries inspired by the Fenn Treasure

 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An independent documentary film about the treasure. 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Of these, only the Ritt book passed verification and seemed in any way notable.
 * Fenn (2010) already in article
 * Fenn (2013) already in article
 * Rhu Seau, Trent (2013) Self-published, no evidence of notability
 * Steele, Maxwell (2013) Self-published, no evidence of notability
 * Briggs, Andrew (2015) Self-published, no evidence of notability
 * Wolf, The (2015)
 * Brooks, Marvin (2016) Self-published, no evidence of notability
 * The Lure No evidence of notability
 * Ritt, Jordan (2015)
 * Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ritt, Jordan (2015)
 * Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's remove spam in Books and media about the Fenn Treasure
The section "Books and media about the Fenn Treasure" is predominantly non-notable self-published books from people who have been looking for the treasure. They're not scholarly works. These include:


 * Rhu Seau, Trent (2013). The Chase for Forrest Fenn's Treasure.
 * Steele, Maxwell (2013). How to Find Forrest Fenn's Treasure.
 * Briggs, Andrew (2015). Title to the Gold: Find Forrest Fenn's treasure. The clues and answers.
 * Ritt, Jordan (2015). A Treasure More Than Gold: How I found the solution to Forrest Fenn's poem.
 * Wolf, The (2015). Finding Forrest Fenn.
 * Brooks, Marvin (2016). Toward Solving Forrest Fenn's Hidden Treasure Clues.

All of these should really be removed per WP guidelines. --JeremyWasHere (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As the problem leading to the protection seems to have been resolved, I have removed the protection and the article is now open to editing as usual. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --JeremyWasHere (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that Ritt, Jordan's book is still there. Please remove it, this is not a place to spam advertisements from FAILED searchers trying to cash in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:4E01:696D:106E:160E:FCE5:705F (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020
Forrest Fenn announced the treasure was found on June 6, 2020. Kelsat (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * References and citations are needed for the extant article (they are not required insofar as Wikie Talk:: pages have requirements) in Talk:: pages.
 * I was informed by the man who organizes Fennboree every year that it has been found. When news coverage of the find had either Douglas Preston or Forrest Fenn being quoted, we will have suitable references and citations to annotate the extant article, however when discussing articles on Wikipedia, that's what editors do here, they discuss the extant article. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Forrest Fenn just told me that his treasure was found." -- This is a quote from author Douglas Preston (Facebook posting) 12 hours ago which confirms what David M. Rice the organizer of Fennboree reported to me yesterday.
 * Once we get news aerticles interviewing Fenn and have suitable references and citations, they may be added to the extant article. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

06Jun20 It's Been Found
Some days ago, the treasure was located and the finder informed Forrest Fenn, providing evidence, and then Fenn informed author Douglas Preston. A public statement is expected this month. The man who organizes Fenboree David Michael Rice (a.k.a Desertphile who is featured in the Forrest Fenn documentary The Lure) is waiting for a public statement confirmation from Fenn or Preston before the various search groups and forums will be informed, and before the hunters on the Fenboree mailing list are informed, however it is likely that the official statement will be posted to the Facebook Fennboree group before anywhere else, including the evidence showing that it has been located. SoftwareThing (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please remember that any update has to comply with the core content policies and be reported in reliable sources. Self-published sites and the like are not generally evidence for extraordinary claims. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been found, the extant article needs citations and references however the Talk:: pages are for discussing aspects of the extant article. Thanks. Oh, as for extrordanar4y claims require extraordinary evidence, I've run The Skeptic Tank for 30+ years on line even before the DARPANet became the Internet, so yeah, I know about evidence, thanks again. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And in fact Douglas Preston on Facebook posted 12 hours ago that it was found, just as I noted in the Talk:: page here yesterday. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The treasure was found
The treasure has been found

It was under a canopy of stars in the lush, forested vegetation of the Rocky Mountains and had not moved from the spot where I hid it more than 10 years ago. I do not know the person who found it, but the poem in my book led him to the precise spot.

I congratulate the thousands of people who participated in the search and hope they will continue to be drawn by the promise of other discoveries.

So the search is over. Look for more information and photos in the coming days. f139.138.6.121 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hopefully we will see Douglas Preston post a note on his Twitter and Facebook, and hopefully Fenn himself will post a note in the Fennboree forum on Facebook.
 * We will need to await news coverage of the find before we can annotate the extant article. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * By the way, that unsigned quote was a posting that Fenn issued, and I see that the extant article has been updated without suitable references and citations already, another editor already added some text to "Discovery" without references or citations, those will need to be added as legitimate news sources interview Fenn. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020
A name needs to be added to this list. My father died look looking for this treasure, and he deserves to be remembered, he was a good man, and he needs to be added to this list.

Michael Robert Peterson, was found drowned in the Yellowstone river June 6th 2017. He died looking for The Fores Fenn treasure, so he could support and make a better life for his four children. Savear McLaughlin (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Publish Savear McLaughlin (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This Westword article mentions speculation that Mike Petersen died looking for the Fenn treasure. gobonobo  + c 11:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * We can't do that, the extant article is about the Forrest Fenn treasure, it is not about random people who died while hiking, camping, crossing rivers and the rest. Wikipedia has expectations that article content is to be relevant. If you want to list people who die searching for treasure, there's likely an existing article for that which you can append names to provided there are references and citations to support the added text. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, people who died in hotel rooms of heart attacks while they waited for sun-up to search aren't listed, people who died in car crashes driving to trailheads so they can search are not listed, the suggestion that people who are injured or died searching for this or any other treasure is not relevant to the extant article. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Eric Ashby
Who added the Eric Ashby paragraph? The section states that Ashby moved to Colorado in year 2016, yet the Tennessee Department of Correction lists Ashby's latest prison sentence (TOMIS ID: 00498717, Blount County Criminal Records Database) will end December 12th 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertphile (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is referenced to a news article. Either it's a different guy with the same name, or he got out early. ApLundell (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Something Fishy going on here with all of this. Big Lightning Pussy-Cat (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020
Says finder was from easter United States. Forrest Fenn only confirmed finder was heading "back east" 206.45.52.76 (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &thinsp;Darth&thinsp; Flappy   '&laquo;Talk&raquo;'  16:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

WHERE WAS THE CHEST FOUND? BY WHO?
SOMETHING STINKS, who found the Chest and where did they find it? Big Lightning Pussy-Cat (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That's none of anyone's business other than the person who found it. If that person wishes to come forward, he or she will, most likely in a television documentary or more likely a ghost-written novel. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Then the whole thing sounds like a big troll, IMHO. I don't care who found it, but why not release the location and maybe an explanation of the poem?  Something's rotten here.  139.138.6.121 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it was not a "troll," it was a game that had one winner who may or may not tell where he or she found it. It seems likely that there will be a novel written by the finder -- which would likely sell quite a few copies. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What's the title of the book, and what is the release date? If you know this information, you're in cahootz with Fenn and this scam, otherwise, you're just speculating.  139.138.6.121 (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm "in cahoots" with Fenn, you discovered the s3crv7 c0nsp1raz7, congratulations. We also killed John F. Kennedy while faking the Moon landing, you're right. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible hoax?
"Journalists have started hedging their bets about the end of the treasure hunt. On June 14, for instance, CBS pointedly noted that "Fenn has so far not provided proof that the treasure chest has truly been found." Likewise, Fenn has not responded to Westword's repeated inquiries about the treasure and when he intends to offer details to substantiate his claims. But his June 6 announcement of the find was virtually evidence-free".

Someone Allegedly Finds $2 Million Buried Treasure In The Rockies (from Forbes)

89-year-old Fenn will neither reveal the location of the treasure nor the identity of the person who unearthed it.

A woman whose ex-husband died hunting for the treasure says it’s a hoax: "I believe he never hid the treasure. He needed attention and this is how he got it”

I understand not wanting to reveal the name of the person who found the treasure but why continue to keep the location a secret after it was allegedly discovered? Should the word "alleged" be used in this article in front of every instance of "Fenn treasure"?

Three reliable sources with relevant information:   -


 * There is always a segment of any populace that will want to believe that everything is a hoax, a conspiracy, a plot against them or committed for nefarious reasons which are vague or not specified at all. Human behavioral psychology addresses the stark bifurcation of the human brain where compartmentalization of what one will think critically about and what one will disbelieve despite all evidence predicated upon emotion and unreason.
 * It is the purveyance of the finder to speak about where the treasure was located, Forrest Fenn is under no obligation to divulge the hiding place. In the unlikely event that Fenn places another treasure (and he won't because of the hate and stupidity of so many people that this treasure hunt dragged out of the sewers and in to the on-line light and given disproportionate volume for their conspiracy beliefs thereby) he would likely want to choose a different environment for the second treasure hunt.
 * The whole swatting point of this hunt was to provide further motivation for people to get off of their spreading, widening, flabby buttocks and get out in to the outdoors, a motivation for Americans who are increasingly soft, increasingly stupid and dull-witted as they sit in front of their televisions being fed mind-numbing right wing propaganda, becoming less and less a nation that has people with physical qualities and intellectual acumen to defend the United States in the face of any actual national threat or disaster.
 * Such motivation to hike, bike, camp, and get off of one's butts is not needed for those of us who enjoy the outdoors merely for the outdoors sake. The treasure hunt was intended to provide a financial incentive to get a certain segment of the populace off their butts already not predisposed toward exercise, a means of getting people out to where they can see that there is something other than concrete, police, cars, and the stink of the city.
 * And as for the suspicious, the stupid, the jealous, and the sad, weak poop those who can't understand why someone would be driven to want others to exercise and to see some of the great outdoors while there's still some left to see, yes, they're going to want to pretend it's a hoax, a c0nsp1raz7, Communism, Socialism, some part of what such people are always convinced takes place against them in opposition of such people's pet ideologies.
 * For actual treasure hunters, this was a fun adventure. For the weak-minded and the hate-centered, for the fear-motivated segment that always infests any population, everything is a hoax. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First, you may want to read this:WP:NOTESSAY.


 * Second, this has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything that you wrote above. These are journalists (including from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) who are asking legitimate questions and inquiring if the Fenn treasure is possibly a hoax due to the lack of evidence Fenn has provided. That is a very rational thing to do (asking questions and investigative inquiry is always a good thing as long as it stays away from conspiratorial thinking).


 * Third, what does "weak poop" mean?


 * Fourth, your essay above is myopic and elitist. Not everyone has the ability to "hike, bike, camp". Some human beings (you may not be aware of this) have physical or mental disabilities (or both) that prevent them from doing the things you mentioned. Yodabyte (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * First, learn why people discuss extant articles on Wikipedia; it's why talk:: pages exist. Second I'm not your psychologist. Third, neither Forrest Fenn nor anyone else has any duty to disabuse conspiracy beliefs harbored by anyone, on or off Wikipedia. Fourth, there are already Wiki pages covering dysfunctional human behavior and conspiracy beliefs, so if anyone has the desire to add their un-evidenced beliefs regarding the Fenn treasure, there's pages set aside just for you.
 * Incidentally, whether anyone dislikes the facts regarding the Fenn treasure is irrelevant to the extant article. Legitimate references and citations drive Wikipedia's goals for accuracy and relevance, not jealousy or mental dysfunction. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would add that unless anyone has evidence in the form of references or citations which indicates that the Fenn treasure was or is a hoax, any proposal to suggest that it was a hoax in the extant article shall be opposed strenuously. Wikipedia guidelines require testable evidence for such claims. Insofar as updating the extant article to suggest it was a hoax is concerned, this is the last I will discuss it unless an editor provides such evidence in the form of legitimate references and citations. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The article does not need to suggest the whole thing is a hoax, it can just use the word "alleged" to show that Fenn has not provided any evidence. Legitimate references and citations back this up (I provided some above including CBC and Forbes).

SoftwareThing here is an article you should read, it may enlighten you a little bit. You keep attempting to make this about conspiracy theorists but it has nothing to do with that (I myself am a skeptic who believes 90% of CT are nonsense). Here are some important quotes from the article:

Some who spent years analyzing Fenn’s every word for hints to the treasure’s location are frustrated by his silence now. “You owe us something here, Forrest,” said Terry Kasberg, a Florida man who searched for the treasure for several years. “People have put thousands of hours into this, thousands. I mean day and night. People lived and breathed this thing for 10 years. And to cut everybody short like this is just so depressing for a lot of people.” In an email Wednesday, Fenn declined an interview with The Denver Post.

The treasure hunters invested time, energy and money into the search, and some likely formed their identities around the effort, said Ryan Curtis, senior instructor of psychology at the University of Colorado Boulder. “In the same way we would form an identity around our job or a relationship,” he said. “If someone dumps you, you often want to know why, because this is such a big part of how you identify yourself and how you think and feel. It’s over, but you still want to come to that closure and find out what is going on.”

It was found in Wyoming
I see in various news releases and in the Fenboree Facebook group that the treasure was located in Wyoming. :) Hopefully we'll get more information here shortly enough for a suitable reference. SoftwareThing (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Fenn Died
Fenn has died of natural causes, confirmed by Douglass Preston. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Further questions about Fenn and the treasure
The Guardian has published an article discussing whether the treasure has really been found (and a few other claims about Fenn). I don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject to add anything to the page, so I'm leaving it here for other editors to use. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2020

 * Kelsat (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Seagull123  Φ  20:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Books

 * Kelsat (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kelsat (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kelsat (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kelsat (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kelsat (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kelsat (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Fenn quest is solved
The site determined by the poem is (37.986555, -107.647828), as proved by photo superimposition of the image from the epilogue of The Thrill of the Chase, published in 2010, onto a 2018 outdoor photo and by lengthy additional proof available by reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bje1128 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's great. But if you insist on adding your own original research to Wikipedia, you will certainly be banned.
 * What's needed is reliable sources like news publications who have covered your research. ApLundell (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've taken this to the administrator's notice board here.
 * ApLundell (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Besides, if you know where the treasure is, go get it, don't sit around posting the location online.-- Auric   talk  18:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From what he says, he's already looked there and failed to find any treasure. (He has concluded that the treasure never existed; others might conclude that it was hidden there and someone else found it ahead of him, or that it was somewhere else.) Maproom (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi ApLundell, Maproom, and Auric, from Bje1128. I appreciate our interaction today and let me emphasize that it is not my goal to start an edit war, to "insist" on anything, or to spam.  Despite the edit conflict and perhaps my violation of certain WP norms, I hope my peaceable tone and attitude is clear.  I am intentionally giving away [what I believe is proved to be] the solution because I have already searched the area thoroughly with a metal detector after clearing trees and brush, finding nothing of value.  This is the only location I have ever so visited, and to be clear, I am not a "disgruntled searcher" but simply an individual in possession of [what I regard to be] immediately visually compelling evidence based on the primary source of the epilogue illustration in the 2010 Fenn book The Thrill of the Chase combined with a photo I took in 2018 [which is not the primary source, his book is] and whose rights I own.  While of course I would love to get treasure, publishing the solution is not motivated by a backdoor attempt to get treasure:
 * Maproom is correct that publishing the correct solution risks treasure, and I do embrace that public risk in all dimensions because [based on my searching, apparently] no treasure is to be found by the person with [what I have determined to be] the demonstrably correct solution. In other words, the evidence I have accumulated, I regard to be solution compelling by independent proof, yet treasure negative.  Since the puzzle is transparently public but the treasure is not necessarily so [regardless of anything anyone says], the solution is all I control and all I will speak for [beyond communicating the plain fact that I have not found the treasure, which proves nothing, and does not alone disprove the solution].


 * WP defines hoax a certain way. This is a word I will reference, but about which I make no claim.  Since the treasure has been photographed and described, I believe it exists, and simply is not in the woods.  That would, in my subjective opinion, not make the search a hoax.  It belongs to Fenn, so its fate is his business.


 * I am well aware that tens of thousands of people have tens of thousands of ideas and solutions about the Fenn quest. I don't regard my solution as correct because I think I'm awesome.  I think I have independent proof by an objective standard [which is new], and right now, that's a one-man show, not because I'm a crank, but because that's simply what it is.  Hope I can make more of it than that.  [Nearly] everyone involved has behaved constructively, so thanks again.


 * Bje1128 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that Wikipedia does not accept original research from its contributors (see WP:OR) and what you are trying to add is quite clearly your own original research. If your claimed solution should be accepted and published by independent reliable sources (see WP:RS) then something about it might be acceptable in this article (depending on what the reliable sources actually say about your claimed solution). But until then, sorry, no, you can not add your own research/solution to the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * North of Sante Fe? misleading - it was in Wyoming - which is like saying the Sun is near Alpha Centauri
 * north pole also fits bill, but no warm water there - people knew of his family going to West yellsotone, he lied about being poor his father was a school principal - a gov employee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee (talk) fully understood and fully respected.


 * Not to argue, because you are right and WP rules are both what they are and are good rules - but just to dialogue, in this case, I ask all to bear in mind that in an individual quest based on a cryptic poem written by a man who doesn't validate and whose most popular blogs ban all solutions without a treasure find [an event that ironically would make those blogs instantly irrelevant], it is structurally impossible for the WP:OR threshold not to be an issue. Not that this is at all about what I personally accept, but for community reference, I do accept the feedback that the visual image based on the TTOTC epilogue [all accompanying a lengthy research report elsewhere] does not meet the WP:RS threshold and I do appreciate the correction.  I will review the RS standard while working integrally to progress to RS.  I am also the first person who has anything even resembling cogent independent proof based on a primary source rather than merely a personal search narrative, which I too have had for years, which wouldn't even meet the OR threshold, and which I wouldn't have dared post.  That's only an observation, not a boast.  If anyone else had anything similar, we would all know, because he or she also likely would have attempted to bring it to attention.


 * FD: Earlier this week I reached out by email, politely, once, to the illustrator, whose contact details are on his artist's website. He disclaimed affiliation with the quest and of course I will leave him alone.  I state this just to show that I'm not brainlessly diving into WP seeking validation.  The RS compliance effort is real, and I welcome additional constructive feedback - the talk page is the place for it.  Thanks again.


 * Bje1128 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you are really understanding the point. It's not about that visual image at all, the issue is that *your* personal publications on your own site can *never* be a reliable source as per WP:RS. What would need to happen, for example, is for, say, a national newspaper or a magazine that satisfies WP:RS to pick up on your claimed solution and then write about it. But even then, all that could be added to this article would be that publication's take on it. And until there is independent verification that your solution is correct, you will not be able to state in this article that you have solved it - and if independent verification is impossible for whatever reason, then this article will never state that it is solved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One other thing, because of your obvious conflict of interest (see WP:COI) regarding your own claimed solution, you should not edit the article directly. You should only request changes here on this talk page for disinterested editors to consider, even after the protection expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Boing! said Zebedee (talk) Thank you for clarifying.  I do understand.  First, the RS standards (now reviewed) are clear.  Second, my unstated assumption is not that my personal webpage can be made fit for WP reference or that any publication of anything anywhere would allow rv to my prior article mods, but rather that I have no chance of meeting the RS standard in a qualifying publication without using the information housed on my webpage including the image furnishing what I will informally call, for reference, the visual proof.


 * I suspect that I have some chance of achieving the RS standard because of the visual proof, but independent verification is beyond my control even if I am fully correct. Thus, I understand that this article might never state that it is solved.  Though I searched, my search is over.  I am not a member of any online search communities and have never blogged, having published only the one private webpage.


 * My motivation, in terms of what I can control, is to release information to the highest standard available through the widest sources possible, which might or might not prove to be WP-eligible, to achieve these results:


 * 1) As WP factually states, this quest motivates accidental death, injury, crime, and property damage, none of which is worth the quest and which a solution could deter, treasure or no.


 * 2) To motivate searchers to focus on the area identified so any treasure there can be found [a giveaway: while unselfish, my opinion of whether a treasure is to be found also is clear by implication]. Any treasure can be only in one demonstrable place.


 * 3) To necessarily, and without animus, otherwise refute the universal perception that there is treasure to be found in the woods. No one would search if they didn't believe they could find, but regardless of what is eligible for a WP article, the necessary logic of the quest is that if it is objectively true that there is no treasure in the woods, then a correct solution cannot be based on having found what isn't there. Insisting that a correct solution include treasure hefted out of a woods, or independent verification that might never arrive regardless of accuracy, would guarantee never solving the quest. Verification by the means I am attempting would prove necessary, or a solution would be impossible by default.


 * Hope it's clear that I do grasp the WP standards and that I'm not here to argue or to tilt at windmills.


 * Finally: re: WP:COI that's a great point and I will do exactly what you suggest.


 * Bje1128 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me just say that I don't doubt your good faith, and your motives (explained above) appear honorable, but they're not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you want to convince people that there's no treasure and to stop looking, you'll have to find another outlet - your findings won't be included in Wikipedia until coverage of them is published in independent reliable secondary sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020
Change (X)

Jack is no longer medical student. Please edit that out
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 16:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for JollyGreen to fix a name-switch error.
In the last paragraph of the Treasure Chest section, it states that the finder (revealed to be Steuf, in the following paragraph) was initially unable to find the promised gold frog and emerald but .... 'Fenn' eventually found the frog but not the emerald.

Of course, Fenn would not be searching for his own treasure, posthumously.

Fenn should be changed to 'the finder' but in my opinion, Steuf's name should be used in that paragraph instead of 'the finder,' rather than revealing it in the next paragraph.

This may require some re-editing of both paragraphs if you want to 'surprise' the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron J Cohen (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe that the wording was correct. The gold frog was (accidentally?) not included in the hidden treasure, but Fenn located it within his own collection and gave it to the finder. I've tried to make that more clear. ApLundell (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Fennboree Web Site went down
The annual gathering of Fenn Treasure hunters is planning on getting together again this year despite the treasure having been found and despite Fenn no longer attending every year because of his death. The author who was featured in The Lure documentary covering the hunt for the treasure coordinated the gathering at Fennboree yet the domain name was allowed to expire -- David M. Rice doesn't have electric power most of the year or Internet access so that's not so surprising -- and the new web site has been moved to fennboree.info.

The extant article here should have an entry covering in summary, at minimum, the annual gathering at Fennboree, and have an "external links" section which covers the annual gathering of Fenn Treasure hunters. Curiously the finding of the treasure and the death of Fenn has spawned a desire among treasure hunters to carry on the annual get-together as a means for people of like mind to gather and talk about where and what they have hunted over the years. SoftwareThing (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)