United States: New Mexico Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (assessed as Low-importance).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Blankenbuehler, Paige (1 April 2019). "Exclusive: The Forrest Fenn treasure has been found". High Country News. Retrieved April 3, 2019.

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

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.^{[1] [2]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bje1128 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've taken this to the administrator's notice board here.

ApLundell (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done. El_C 20:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! --JeremyWasHere (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ramen to that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Many claims made in Fenn's self-published books and in news articles are alleged to not hold up to fact checking. For instance, Fenn claims to have built and previously owned the Dude and Round up Motels in West Yellowstone, Montana, in 1962 and claims Ronald Reagan stayed there during a governor's conference.^[1] However, research into records show the motel was not constructed until 1977 and was built for owner Roger Beattie contrary to Fenn's claims.^[2] As of 2014, the Dude & Roundup Motels were still owned by Roger Beattie.^[3] In addition, Reagan's governorship was from 1967 to 1975 and ended before the motel was built.

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 ẞœ. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44044386/dude_motel/ 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. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

A summons was issued to Fenn on January 16, 2020 and was served on January 27, 2020. ^[1]

Per policy, Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ẞœ, do not add this content again, and do discuss any concerns here. –dlthewave ☎ 19:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: 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)[reply]

• Fenn, Forrest (2010). The Thrill of the Chase. ISBN 9780967091785.
• Fenn, Forrest (2013). Too Far to Walk. ISBN 9780967091792.
• Rhu Seau, Trent (2013). The Chase for Forrest Fenn's Treasure. ASIN B00CCZ5XVC.
• Steele, Maxwell (2013). How to Find Forrest Fenn's Treasure. ASIN B00BSXTISS.
• Briggs, Andrew (2015). Title to the Gold: Find Forrest Fenn's treasure. The clues and answers. ASIN B0145S7IU2.
• Ritt, Jordan (2015). A Treasure More Than Gold: How I found the solution to Forrest Fenn's poem. ISBN 9781478753742.
• Wolf, The (2015). Finding Forrest Fenn. ISBN 9781311318602.
• Brooks, Marvin (2016). Toward Solving Forrest Fenn's Hidden Treasure Clues. ISBN 9780692711781.
• The Lure. 2017. An independent documentary film about the treasure. ^[1] 206.45.52.76 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]