Talk:The Poseidon Adventure (1972 film)

Tsunami Wave
The initial premise for the cause of the accident is that the Poseidon is heading to Athens in the Mediterranean sea, and is hit by a Tsunami wave.

Waves caused by under-sea earthquakes tend to have an amplitude (height) of 30cm when off shore. To Quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami "Tsunamis have a small amplitude (wave height) offshore, and a very long wavelength (often hundreds of kilometres long, whereas normal ocean waves have a wavelength of only 30 or 40 metres), which is why they generally pass unnoticed (MY BOLD) at sea, forming only a slight swell usually about 300 millimetres (12 in) above the normal sea surface. They grow in height when they reach shallower water, in a wave shoaling process described below....."

So the Poseidon is far out at sea but is hit by a type of wave that only occurs close to the shore. I suggest it was far out at sea as if the Poseidon was close to shore the rescue helicopter would have arrived far faster than the 117 minutes the film runs for, assuming a helicopter flies at 100Mph and left quickly that would put the ship about 150+ miles away from the coast, though I do not remember if the ship got off an SOS...

My point: Is it at all feasible that a wave of the size shown could actually happen that far from land due to an earthquake? I put this in the discussion section because in the film/book it is stated the wave was due to an earthquake, so editing the page would be inappropriate. If the general consensus from those with more understanding of the subject (than I have) agree that the wave would/could not actually occur for the reasons stated I leave it up to them as to how (of if) is should be incorporated into the main article. Freak waves (on the other hand) have been documented on a few occurrences, so had the film/book just said "a freak wave" I would have no issues. (Yes, I know it's a story, made up, but "sleepless in Seattle" is made up but could happen, while harry-potter is made up and could not happen.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bat Flattery (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you bring up a heck of a good point. Tsunamis are devastating close to the shoreline.  But hardly noticeable out at sea.


 * I think the movie needed the plot element that the captain had to be called away for an advance warning type of situation. So, they went with something unrealistic.  Straight up.  (but just not something widely known to be unrealistic, at least back in the early 1970s.)  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You give a good explanation of why there wouldn't be s tsunami that far out at sea. I'm not sure of the relevance here though. Regardless of whether it could happen (Sleepless in Seattle) or couldn't happen (Harry Potter), the film is still fiction. In fact, I'm sure when analyzed carefully by an expert, few films stand up to absolute scrutiny. I'm sure Starbucks employees find fault in how people serve coffee in films ("that couldn't happen because the coffee couldn't have brewed that fast"). Additionally, could it happen if the earthquake caused extreme damage to the plate? What if the floor of the Sea dropped a quarter of a mile? Is it likely? No. But it's probably possible. So why the argument? 184.184.168.163 (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is what you get when people who don't know any thing about any thing want to edit articles. Nothing in the film says they are in the Atlantic. For a wave from Crete to hit them they have to be in the Mediterranean Sea. Since they were in radio contact with Athens for reports on the quake they were nearest Greece. The course from New York to Athens takes them along the southern Greek coast. Likely they were near the coastline. Conceivably swimming distance from shore. The movie is consistent with somewhere between Crete, and Greece. Awful lot of commentary with no one even looking at a map, or pointing this out for nearly a decade. That's wikipedia for ya. That said "130 miles northwest of Crete" is the Greek coast. Not likely an earthquake just off the southwest coast of Greece would be reported to be from Crete. However the radio contact may have known Poseidon was near Crete so reasonably reported where the quake was in relation to Crete. 98.164.74.218 (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but are you arguing about the plot's feasibility? It's a movie. Lots of movies have ridiculous premises—maybe most of them. If we got bogged down in that, we'd never finish an article, would we? ;?) – AndyFielding (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Also—and sorry, I'm just being an editor here—"Tsunami wave" is redundant, and "tsunami" isn't a proper noun. (Okay, got that out of my system.) – AndyFielding (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Basis of film
Is the movie/novel based on a true incident ? Jay 11:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * ''I asked this question at Reference_desk on 9-Feb-05. Here is the response :
 * IMDb's trivia page for the movie says the novel was inspired by a real incident during World War II where RMS Queen Mary was hit by a freak wave. Queen Mary supposedly came very close to capsizing but didn't. I don't know how true the statement is, as I can't find any verification, and the incident is not listed in queenmary.com's timeline. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 13:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The citations I've seen mention this incident as being a close-run thing - within a few degrees - and a couple of hundred miles off Ireland, probably in late 1944. Details are sketchy, although as it wouldn't have been publicised this doesn't indicate anything. I looked into it a while back, with no success. (If you want a horrible thought - she was trooping at the time, so would have had over ten thousand on board, with them kept inside and belowdecks due to the storm... and maintaining radio silence, so she wouldn't have been recorded missing for a day or two. Really a recipe for disaster)
 * However, as I understand it, the film may have been based off a similar - but less drastic - event around the same time. I'll see if I can find the notes I made on this before. Shimgray 01:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)''


 * The irrefutable Snopes claims that the 1969 novel was based in turn on a silent 1911 movie of the same name, directed by no less than D.W. Griffith. 1911 was before the Queen Mary. Snopes has a link to what appears to be an imdb page on the 1911 film; the link is coded to appear with the URL field suppressed. When the link is made visible it turns out to be a page at snopes, here. I cannot find such a page at imdb and imdb's page on Griffith lists no such movie among his extensive oeuvre. Not quite sure what to make of that.


 * * Update: it has been pointed out to me that everything on snopes "lost legends" pages is made up. This is explicit in prior pages and in the "about this page" link but not within the article itself. So ignore the above. Sharkford 15:36, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)


 * Further, I question whether the article should state flatly that the ship was capsized by "a tsunami", since tsunami do not present as breaking waves to ships at sea, which typically ride out tsunami comfortably, even unawares. "Freak wave" or "rogue wave" would be a better term. If the book and/or the movie call it a tsunami (or more likely, "tidal wave"), we should present that term in quotes with a parenthetical explanation. But I have neither source at hand.


 * Sharkford 20:22, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)


 * The article should say "rogue wave". That is what would be required to capsise a ship at sea. Tsunami's do not seriously affect vessels in the open sea.124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, the dialogue in the film clearly says, "Sub-sea earthquake." FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See "Tsunami Wave" above. 98.164.74.218 (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Differences between novel and film
In the 1972 Movie adaptation there are differences between the book and the movie: Robin Shelby is not lost but found; Susan Shelby is not raped; the only survivors are those who made it to the propellor shaft not the bow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.184.226 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

1973 Mad Magaizne Spoof I sure remember this issue...it was hilarious!Likewise it "exposed" sterotypichal cliches of the survivors; Mrs Rosen dies of drowning because she forgot you cant talk underwater; Rev Scott questions God actions and is killed by a lighting bolt; Robin Shelley is running for his life from Mike Rogo after the boy remembers that if the ship ever turned over you'd only have to wait 2 hours before it turned itself right back up again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.184.226 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit
Removed this paragraph and shortened it.

"While in the overturned ballroom, the young Reverend, an English bookkeeper Mary Kinsale, an injured waiter named Acre, NYPD detective Mike Rogo, his beautiful, racist, foul-mouthed, ex-Hollywood starlet, ex-Broadway star, and ex-prostitute wife Linda, quiet haberdasher James Martin, San Franciscan pretty boy bachelor Hubie Muller, Detroit car company vice-president Richard Shelby, his stunning but resentful wife Jane, his maturing seventeen year old daughter Susan, his energetic ten year old son Robin, retired delicatessen owner Manny Rosen, his obese and frightened wife Belle, raging alcoholic Tony "The Beamer" Bates, and his young and in love girlfriend Pamela Reid, use a metal Christmas tree to ascend to the kitchen."

That is an insane run on. But the information should be ammended and reinstated in a more coherent fashion as it is a list of characters. 207.114.232.98 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PoseidonAdventure.jpg
Image:PoseidonAdventure.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:11poseidon2.jpg
Image:11poseidon2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PoseidonAdventure.jpg
Image:PoseidonAdventure.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't find citation
I looked in "Cahiers du Cinema" but didn't find any reference to this movie…shouldn't interpretation(s) be in a separate paragraph below anyway? Historian932 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Characters - Question
Why is it that some of the main characters have a description, while others do not?--Gleezus (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Film depicts Earthquake and thus Tsunami
http://www.poseidonadventure.com/gangway/Trivia/The_Definitive_Poseidon_Adventure_FAQ/the_definitive_poseidon_adventure_faq2.html Well, it started with an earthquake that occurred (to be read aloud in a heavy Greek accent) "One hundred and thirty miles northwest of Crete." In case anybody's been wondering where Crete is in relation to Greece, here's a map. So, the earthquake and resulting tidal wave started... er, 130 miles northwest of there.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/p/poseidon-adventure-script-transcript-hackman.html

“From the seismographic station

in Athens, sir.

“Sub-sea earthquake,  on the Richter scale.

“Epicenter     miles  northwest of Crete.”

also. . .  http://www.funtrivia.com/en/Movies/Poseidon-Adventure-The-2677.html

Now, as discussed in the top section above, a rogue wave might have been more realistic, but the film clearly depicts tsunami. (Tsunamis can be highly devastating to shorelines, but middle of ocean only raise water a couple of inches.)

Be that as it may, I think we need to change the "See also" section on our article page from "Rogue wave" to "Tsunami" to keep with the elements of the film. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC) See "Tsunami Wave" above. 98.164.74.218 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

James Martin character as low-key leader?
Yes, I think so.

Mr. Martin is the first one to come up with the idea of going upward. He tells Rev. Scott who very much agrees with the idea.

In a quiet, understated, human way, Mr. Martin convinces Nonnie to go with the group. In fact, he's the only one to successfully convince anyone.

He helps and advises Nonnie to take the ladder climb in the smoke stack step by step.

When Mr. Rojo and Rev. Scott are arguing, he says, I think the rest of us would feel a whole lot better if you two weren't yelling at each other.

He helps Nonnie make it through the underwater passage by holding onto his belt. And at the very end, he challenges Mr. Rojo by asking what kind of cop he is.

Yes, I think the James Martin character is a low-key leader and should be more fully included in our plot summary. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMPLOT states that in most cases the plot summary should be 400-700 words. It was over 900 before I brought it down to 763 words, which still is technically too high. While we can form a consensus to waive that guideline, personally I'm not sure that's merited. As to your feelings about Martin...if you're willing to refactor the summary in a way that maintains the lower word count, you're welcome to add your material, but I don't believe it's essential to understanding the plot. Have any reliable sources brought up your opinion? Doniago (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you write the article? That why are you wiki lawyering up? It's jackasses like you ruining Wikipedia. The rule about citing published sources is when an edit is challenged, or likely to be. But good faith demands a challenger assume the edit is true unless the challenger has a source with integrity that counters the edit. Otherwise you have what Wikipedia has, every jackass on the planet challenging every trivial fact, and citations lists longer than the article answering the challenges which shows most challenges are from vacuous headed jackasses looking for attention. Or part of the well known well funded attacks by enemy governments popularizing among vacuous headed jackasses the degrading by any source's integrity. That said I agree with the idea of character studies at least for the academy award actors. Particularly considering the movie was a transitional film between old Hollywood, and new. Old Hollywood rules that those who transgress social norms must be punished. Scott transgresses against church orthodoxy, and challenges God. He dies. Linda Rogo is a competent level headed woman of action. She even helps a man up a staircase. Can't directly say competence in a woman is a transgression so she's made a whore. Obviously a transgressor. She dies. That's old Hollywood. New Hollywood says transgressors can be heroes. Antiheroes anyway. The cop states Linda was the only thing he ever loved. He's a bad cop. Abusing his police power with multiple arrests he harassed his wife, an independent woman, into marriage. New Hollywood addressed the truth that was becoming more exposed that old cultural heroes like cops could be bad guys. Many cops have harassed women into sex. One group of cops I know of organized a spree of robbery, and rape of women. Prior to their capture their commanders told the press they were "police impersonators". 98.164.74.218 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Rev. Scott convinces the Rosens to go. Linda Rogo convinces Mr. Rogo. 98.164.66.187 (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Poseidon Adventure (1972 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805112301/http://www.poseidonadventure.com/gangway/Tributes%2C044_Parodies_%2C038_Satires/MAD_Magazine_and_Its_Imitators/ to http://www.poseidonadventure.com/gangway/Tributes%2C044_Parodies_%2C038_Satires/MAD_Magazine_and_Its_Imitators/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on the effects?
Considering what a visually groundbreaking film this was, I'm surprised the article has no details about how its effects were done. Anyone? – AndyFielding (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The 1911 Movie Myth
This discussion is about adding a paragraph regarding the claimed 1911 version of The Poseidon Adventure. The paragraph states:

"An urban legend claims the 1972 movie was itself a remake: that there was a D.W. Griffith 1911 black-and-white silent movie called “The Poseidon Adventure” concerning six passengers and crew members endeavoring to survive after their ship is hit by a tidal wave, and that, by an eerie coincidence, that movie was being shown aboard the Titanic in 1912 on the evening the real ship struck the iceberg. The legend then suggests that Paul Gallico expanded the 1911 movie’s ideas in his 1969 novel of the same name, which was then used as the core of the 1972 movie.  However, IMDb does not list any such D.W. Griffith movie,  and even the website where the legend started has admitted the story is not true. "

The paragraph is accurate, relevant and documented. There is nothing “unencyclopedic” about clearing up myths regarding a subject. It may not be possible to clear up every myth on every subject; but, this seems to be a widely-circulated myth on this particular subject since 1999, and I am not aware of a tremendous number of other myths regarding this movie which ought to be addressed. Specifically:

(1) If you go to Google and type in “1911 Poseidon adventure,” you pull up a common search term on Google being “Poseidon adventure 1911.” The fact that it is a common search term on Google certainly suggests how widespread the myth is. Nor is the myth too ridiculous to take seriously. There are, for instance, silent movie versions of both “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” (1916), and “The Wizard of Oz” (1925).

(2) If you click on the “Poseidon adventure 1911” search term, the absolute first thing that comes up is the original Snopes “Fact Check” article. So anyone hearing the legend and trying to look into it will have it immediately confirmed that, yes, it is true.

(3) There is nothing on the Snopes page itself that suggests that the story is not true. At the very bottom of the page is “Additional information” with two links, one being what was at the time The Poseidon Adventure (1911) page on the Internet Movie Database (this has apparently since been removed), and another innocent-looking link that says, “More information about this page.” Only if you click on that link are you told the story is not true, and I suspect most people would miss it entirely.

(4) Finally, Wikipedia is a user-produced encyclopedia. If some “fact” is not mentioned on a page, does that mean the “fact” is not true, or does it mean the users who wrote the page are unaware of it? It is simple enough to mention this myth and affirmatively state it is not true, which saves both (a) readers who have heard the myth having to do more research on the topic, which may or may not lead them to conclude the myth is true, or (b) perhaps worse, having some helpful user insert onto the page the story about the 1972 film being a remake of the 1911 film, without knowing or indicating the story is, in fact, untrue.

Obviously, the information could go into a separate paragraph entitled “Myths and legends” or something; but, that would simply serve to elevate the information even more. It seems less intrusive to slip it into an existing paragraph like “Sequel and remakes.” Nor does the suggested language have to be included verbatim; however, a lesser mention, like, “The Poseidon Adventure is not a remake of any earlier film,” may again simply suggest to some readers that the writers of the page are unaware of the 1911 version. The suggested language clears up any confusion on that point directly. TulGuy (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We're not here to support what some people may believe that isn't true. We don't list that many people believe sushi means raw fish for example. For Google, you can recreate those search terms with almost anything (I got one for Poseidon Adventure 1848 full movie for instance) and it's not indicative of anything and to draw a conclusion from it is pure Wp:OR. As for the Snopes article, it's clearly not true and they make that clear. They have it categorised under "Lost Legends" where if you click the "About This Rating" they clearly say that it's a story and "We created The Repository of Lost Legends (TRoLL for short) for those of you who don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story." They're pretty clear its nonsense and in the False Authority clear state it's a pure exercise in creative writing. And there's no evidence that this is a widely believed urban myth either. In fact there's actually no evidence it isn't just something Snopes made up one day and that it exists outside of them writing the TRoLL article (clue likely in the name.) It's literally something Snopes made up they state that. And lastly, it's not about a sequel or a remake of the 1972 film so it clearly doesn't belong there anyway. And the IMDb link on the Snopes page is a direct link to the 1972 Poseidon Adventure movie, they just call the link 1911. It's not a 1911 page that has since been deleted on IMDb and redirected to the 1972 movie.
 * TLDR: It seems that Snopes is actually the originator of this "urban myth" that they came up with 25 years ago as a creative writing exercise and it all stems from them just a a piece of fun. No evidence it's actually believed by anyone beyond that. Canterbury Tail talk 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody believes it?  On the http://www.paulgallico.ino/whatsnew.html www.paulgallico.ino/whatsnew.html page regarding The Literature of Paul Gallico, we find on August 28, 2000 that they actually added a reference to the 1911 Poseidon Adventure.  They removed it August 31, 2001, having finally figured out it was a hoax, but it obviously fooled them for over a year. If you go to https://imgur.com/gallery/0mlpCgE, a user with the handle of PedroHenriqueTitanicFan posted *IN 2021* a rehash of the Snopes story with no indication of having figured out it was a hoax.  If you go to the Wikipedia disambiguation page called The Poseidon Adventure, and then go to the associated talk page, a user posted a statement in 2012 that someone needed to make an article on the 1911 Poseidon film.  Nobody corrected him until 2015. And if you want to go to https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B004I8VGX0 regarding a book published in 2022, a user points out that the book reports the 1911 film & Titanic connection as fact. Who knows how many people are quoting the book?  So no, the statement that nobody believes it is factually incorrect.  And we are not catering to the myth, but debunking it, by providing correct information. TulGuy (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay lets break that one down.
 * 1) paulgallico.info is just one person's fan page. It has no official connection to Paul Gallico whatsoever. So one person got duped by the Snopes page (that we've already established originated this "myth"), big deal.
 * 2) a random person posting on Imgur. Not in any way close to even approaching any kind of a reliable source and most of it is just close paraphrasing of the Snopes article (close enough that it would be flagged as a copyvio likely on Wikipedia.)
 * 3) A random editor on Wikipedia came here with a comment about it. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So someone read something random on the internet and believed it, hardly the first time such nonsense has happened.
 * 4) A user review on Amazon is not a reliable source.
 * 5) There's ultimately nothing to debunk because it isn't even a myth in the first place bring just a piece of fiction someone wrote.
 * You have failed to provide any reliable sources that there is any evidence that this deliberately made up "myth" is believed by more than a couple of non-notable people on the internet. No evidence that this is wide-spread or taken seriously by anyone. As a result even mentioning it is at very best WP:TRIVIA. Building a case that this is actually believed (and there's no evidence that random people posting stuff on the internet believe anything they type, heaven knows that's often wrong) by any significant portion of the population based on random Google hits from non-reliable sources is pure WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Not a single thing has been mentioned that would make this pass due weight or reliable sources. WP:DUE states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia". This very much falls under that. Canterbury Tail talk 19:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, let's break your response down. Your comment was, "No evidence it's actually believed by anyone beyond that."  I can't be sure how many people believe this-- and neither can you.  I showed four pieces of clear evidence that people did very much believe the story, at least until (in some cases) disabused of the notion by someone else.  I can provide many more examples of discussion pages online where someone brings up the myth as true, only to be told it isn't.  What we are trying to accomplish is very much the latter-- to be a definitive and documented source to indicate the story is not true.
 * I'm amused by your complete dismissal under item 4, that "A user review on Amazon is not a reliable source." Are you saying that, if I buy a copy of the book and prove that the paragraph is in there, then you will concede the point and let in the language?  I suspect not-- you're just casting around for reasons to ignore the proof I've already submitted showing that people take this seriously.  OK, why don't you provide evidence of your statement that nobody takes it seriously?  That's just an opinion, backed up by pretty much nothing, whereas I have provided clear evidence that real people have indeed been fooled.  The weight of evidence on this point is on my side.
 * Oh, and one other point-- you trotting out the language out due weight, reliable sources, or viewpoint held by an extremely small minority. If I was trying to insert that there WAS a 1911 version of The Poseidon Adventure, then this language would apply and you would have a point.  But I'm not.  I'm pushing to include the generally recognized position-- in fact, the very same position you recognize-- that the legend in NOT true.  None of that language applies.  So, your next excuse for not including the language is....? TulGuy (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is such a small and trivial thing it's completely undue as pointed out. This isn't some majorly believed "myth" and no evidence has been produced for it. No Amazon reviews are not reliable sources, neither are blogs, forums, Reddit, social media, what someone said at the pub etc. To include it you would need to prove A) it's a widespread belief and B) come up with reliable third party sources discussing the "myth". Basically you're trying to argue to include text about a myth not being true when there's no real evidence anything beyond a completely non-notable minority believes it (even no evidence they do believe it.) This is equivalent of putting a section in the article on the sky that some believe it's not blue or that water is not wet in the water article. So yes Wp:UNDUE is very much the right policy against this. I'm sure there are people that claim to believe English is not English and it is actually ancient Aramaic. You can find something for everything, and the fact it's such a minor minority thing is precisely why we don't discuss these. An no I don't need to prove anything, as the person trying to include this WP:TRIVIA the WP:ONUS is on you to provide the reliable sources and prove it passes our policies for inclusion.
 * So in summary. Completely Wp:UNDUE and lacking in any reliable third party sources talking about this. This is why it's not going in. Canterbury Tail talk 19:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I’m not presenting a minority view. I’m presenting the facts that (a) there is an internet hoax about this movie being a remake of a 1911 Griffith movie, (b) Griffith made no such movie, and (c) even the people who produced the hoax indicate elsewhere it’s not true.  All these are statements with which you agree.  So I’m not presenting a theory-- minority, fringe or otherwise. And you can’t suggest I’m promoting the hoax, since I’m clearly debunking it.
 * That brings us back to your original statement that “nobody” believes this. I’ve already presented examples that show this is not true. For instance, I cite the the http://www.paulgallico.ino/whatsnew.html page regarding The Literature of Paul Gallico, where we find on August 28, 2000 that they actually added a reference to the 1911 Poseidon Adventure.  Your response was, “paulgallico.info is just one person's fan page. It has no official connection to Paul Gallico whatsoever.”  Assuming you’re correct—so what?  The issue was whether real people out there have been fooled by this, and this shows that even a superfan of Paul Gallico was fooled by it.  When I point out that a user with the handle of PedroHenriqueTitanicFan posted a rehash of the Snopes story in 2021 with no indication of having figured out it was a hoax, your response was, ”a random person posting on Imgur. Not in any way close to even approaching any kind of a reliable source and most of it is just close paraphrasing of the Snopes article…” Again, so what?  It shows another user, apparently a Titanic devotee, taken in by the article.  I’m not clear on your comment about not being a reliable source—a reliable source for what? We’re not arguing over whether the hoax is true—it isn’t-- we’re arguing over whether people believe it, and he obviously did.  Same for the user who posted on The Poseidon Adventure disambiguation page asking about the 1911 movie, to which you responded, “A random editor on Wikipedia came here with a comment about it. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.” Again, so what?  It shows this particular “random editor” was taken in by the myth, and secondly, I’m not trying to use reference this Wikipedia page as a footnote for the language I want to insert.  And as for the reference to the book recently published that we're told includes the myth— well, I will agree that we’d have to view the book to confirm, but I’ve offered to do so if it settles the matter, and you have very clearly not accepted that invitation. So I take it you believe, as I do, that the user was probably correct, and you don’t want confirmation of that.
 * Apparently realizing that you were losing that discussion, you now state, “To include it you would need to prove A) it's a widespread belief and B) come up with reliable third party sources discussing the myth.” So now you’ve moved off the “nobody” believes this theory, and are instead claiming that I would have to prove this is a “widespread belief” to include it.  I don’t see any support for this.  First, it would be an impossible standard to achieve—how could either of us determine how many people believe this, and who would be the judge—you?  I’ve demonstrated actual people do believe this.  How many, nobody can tell.  As I stated originally, if you go to Google and type in “1911 Poseidon adventure,” you pull up a common search term on Google being “Poseidon adventure 1911.” The fact that it is a common search term on Google certainly suggests the myth is reasonably widespread.  But again, I’m just trying to include facts on the page which are consistent with the majority understanding of the facts surrounding this movie (see first paragraph).  I’m not trying to assert that the hoax is true, so no, Wp:UNDUE is very much not the right policy against this.
 * And as to your statement about my language not going in—that remains to be seen. I don’t report to you, you don’t own Wikipedia or The Poseidon Adventure page, and I don’t need to prove that the material should go in—you need to prove there is a legitimate reason for accurate, relevant and documented information like this to be kept out. I’ve gone through the Talk Page process as you requested, but still haven’t seen any convincing argument as to why this information should not be included.  If you’d like to get a third party involved and go through the Wikipedia mediation process to end this, that’s fine with me; I’m confident in my position.
 * I'm also willing to try to accommodate your concerns as to the exact wording, but that could be problematic. We could say, without reference to the hoax at all, “The Poseidon Adventure is not a remake of any earlier silent movie.” But how would we document that statement—there’s no database of every early silent movie as far as I know.  We could state, “The Poseidon Adventure is not a remake of a 1911 D.W. Griffith movie.” That could be documented, but the statement seems kind of random without any context, like saying “The Poseidon Adventure is not a remake of a Monet watercolor.”  The best I can think of is, “Despite an internet hoax to the contrary , The Poseidon Adventure is not a remake of a 1911 D.W. Griffith movie . That avoids reciting the hoax altogether, but allows users to check out both the hoax and the refutation if they desire.  It also compacts the whole discussion down to a single sentence.
 * I’m also willing to discuss placement on the page. I note your comment, “And lastly, it's not about a sequel or a remake of the 1972 film so it clearly doesn't belong there anyway.” If placement is your issue, then as I've stated above, the information could go into a separate paragraph entitled “Myths and legends” or something; but, that would simply serve to elevate the information even more. It seemed less intrusive to slip it into an existing paragraph like “Sequel and remakes” by indicating it’s not remake. But it could certainly go elsewhere.
 * Frankly, it’s rather an insult to both Paul Gallico and the film that ANYONE would be left twisting in the wind, believing the 1972 film is simply a rehash of a 1911 film. I would think setting straight anyone confused on that point would be both a useful and desired goal of The Poseidon Adventure page.  Why WOULDN’T we want every user to know this was fresh instead of a rehash? TulGuy (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As mentioned before this is completely WP:UNDUE, lacking in reliable sources and no I don't have to prove your material shouldn't go in, you have to obtain consensus to include it once it's been disputed. We're not here to preserve Paul Gallico's reputation or prove that his film isn't a remake, that's again what reliable sources are for. If reliable third party sources aren't talking about this or proving it, we don't include it. You've provided no evidence that this is notable enough to include and rises above WP:TRIVIA. And lastly "nobody" is obviously colloquial for practically no one as I believe you know. There is literally someone to believe every possible theory out there. However if those people are not reliable sources or covered by reliable sources then they are indeed, for our purposes, nobody. Canterbury Tail <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)