Talk:Joe D'Amato

Untitled
Does anyone have a photo of d'Amato himself? JesseG 01:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * try this site ~ IICATSII 09:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of D'Amato's film were financed by mob money, and he himself talks about "a man and a woman from Florida who showed up one day at my doorstep with a suitcase full of cash" in an interview on Emmanuelle in America. Did the FBI ever investigate him, or are these just more of his FIB's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.241.2 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For a start, it would be interesting to know where this interview can be found.Flickyard (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: Brian DePalma a pseudonym of Joe D'Amato?
Brian DePalma is one of Joe D'Amato's pseudonyms? Seriously? -- MidnightSoldier (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He chose the name "Joe D'Amato" to resemble the names of famous American-Italian directors such as Brian De Palma, but I don't think he ever used that name specifically. According to the IMDB, however, he has used the name "Raf De Palma". 71.31.154.140 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up
Okay, there was a lot of unsourced, unreadable prose in the biography. I've replaced it with sourced content. If there's problems with the readability, feel free to clean it up. Unless you are adding more common titles to films in the prose, lets not add random alternative titles in the prose. Good? Good! After that, lets clean-up the swamp of a filmography. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Umberto Lenzi wikipage has not even been fixed yet, and now the D'Amato page gets turned upside down? Shouldn't you fix one page before disrupting others? Let's just hope no one has to get info on D'Amato in the near future, because 90% of the info on the page has been deleted (vandalized in my opinion). A big step down.19:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'm usually been pretty lenient, but having content that is sourced and not unsourced content, then explain how statements like ". He is generally considered the most prolific Italian filmmaker of all time." or "Emanuelle in America unexpectedly contains fake, but gritty, snuff film footage." and other random unsourced content. Give me a break. You know the rules, but you keep adding unsourced content. If you want to do that, create your own wiki. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write either one of those sentences.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Also the idea that the page has been "vandalized" is a joke. If you have content, create some sources. I'd love to hear you go on about how it was vandalized. A page that has unsourced content for years... Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

All I'm saying is you shouldn't completely destroy a filmography that's been fine for the last 5 years when you don't have the "sourced info" that you'd need to correct it. Why didn't you at least wait until you had the sources to add, instead of just destroying everyone else's work and leaving the page all out of order? I don't get it.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not destroyed, it can easily be viewed from the history. This one is in fact better as it actually goes into his work as a cinematographer which is definitely mentioned in the article, but not in the article but was not reflected in the filmography. This one also has dates that actually reflect when a film was released and shows he did more work. All the other ones are filled with trivial points such as working with an actor or another, which was also badly done because in this case the article did not expand on why these collaborations mattered. I am also tired of visiting pages of these exploitation film directors and getting no sourced content, poorly written fan page stuff (see above) and no actual sources. If you left these articles long enough, they'd eventually get deleted. You seem really eager to keep unsourced information, which goes against basic principles of wikipedia. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." So per your five years comment, we've had five years to find sources. No source? Don't keep it in the article. Simple as that.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

ok if you're willing to leave unsourced material for 5 years, then why are you immediately deleting all of the info I'm entering, even though I'm providing actual sources as to dates of origin?? Just assume my sources arer correct unless you can find one that contradicts it, wouldn't that be a reasonable thing to do? If you find a more specific source than the one I've provided, then change it, but why not leave my sources in place at least until you find a source that proves it wrong? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See below. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Filmography
Please do not add sources that simply state a date like "Troll 2 (1990)". It is not clear whether these releases are a copyright or release date in the sources being added. I can find several contradictions to your sources so unless they are specifically stating a film has been released on a certain date, do not add a year. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

ok if you're willing to leave unsourced material for 5 years, then why are you immediately deleting all of the info I'm entering, even though I'm providing actual sources as to dates of origin?? Just assume my sources arer correct unless you can find one that contradicts it, wouldn't that be a reasonable thing to do? If you find a more specific source than the one I've provided, then change it, but why not leave my sources in place at least until you find a source that proves it wrong? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Just assume your sources are correct". Sorry, but if you want to add content, the onus is up to you to prove it. That link there states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." If you want it there, you gotta back it up, if you can't it doesn't get to stay because you are finding it. Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth, so in short "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." I mean argument is "I think i'm right, but I can't prove it, but lets pretend nothing is wrong until someone else does the work for me. Nuh-uh. I've posted several rules above you are breaking by doing this. So as much as I'd love a perfect correct filmography, you are not going to get anyone to back you up here . Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You act like if a fact is found in a published source, that makes it perfectly verifiable. I have read dozens of reference books that contain dozens of errors relating to release dates and dates of origin. Just because you find a specific release date in a published book, and it contradicts the date listed on imdb.com, doesn't mean imdb.com is wrong. In most cases, the imdb info is the correct info. Any idiot can publish a book, that doesn't make the information in the book accurate. Most of the reference books all contradict each other, especially regarding low-budget Italian horror movies. Most of the release date info in these books is all made up by the author, but for some reason, you think they're all accurate because the book was "published"? Imbd's info is published as well....on the internet! It's still published information, it's just not on paper. You'd do a lot better to use imdb than all the inaccurate reference books out there, let me tell you.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have your reference books, please present them (although you also stated that these release dates of films have been lost in time, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here). I'm not really saying that any sources found specifically are right or wrong, but by WP:RS/IMDb, we do not use IMDb as a source because its information sourced from user-generated content. Wikipedia is not truly about "truth" but whether or not you can verify something. IMDb information submitted by users is not verifiable, so we don't use it. If you want to try and suggest IMDb to be used a source, I'd take it up with WP:FILM, but I do not think you'll get a lot of support there for this case. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen imdb.com info used as a source on hundreds of wikipedia pages. The wiki rules even state it can be used as a source in the absence of other sources. It says many people prefer not to use it, but the rules say imdb can be used in the absence of any other sources, and I've seen it used on hundreds of wiki entries. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pages are using IMDb for a source, but it does not mean they should be. They will, eventually, be removed. Per WP:RS/IMDb, "The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. [...] Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally unacceptable. So, while itself discouraged as a source, IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites." I have no clue where you are getting your rule from. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Discouraging" people from using imdb as a source is not the same thing as not being permitted to use it. It just means it is "discouraged", but still permitted in the absence of other sources. Why are you only deleting my use of imdb, and no one else's?? its spelled harassment.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Bring this idea up on MOS:FILM, see how they feel about it. If you think it should be used or want to know how much it should be, this goes beyond just this article and will reflect on all film related articles. So go ahead, see how it flys there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Trinity film and filmography
As the article on the Trinity film does not make it clear whether D'Amato directed the film or not, I do not think he should be listed as a director simply in the filmography. My suggestion would be to clarify it, like it was done with the Riccardo Freda filmography, where his film credits are also not always clear. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the entry on "Trinity" in the filmography and for opening this discussion. I completely agree with this: It should definitely be mirrored on the D'Amato page that there is a discussion on who directed this and that it is unclear.
 * That being said, if Bruckner is cited as a source for the information, I think it is problematic not to include the complete information found in Bruckner's lemma, which is that Joe D'Amato directed this together with Diego Spataro and Demofilo Fidani. Otherwise, readers might think that he only states D'Amato as the cinematographer, which is not true.
 * On another note, I do not think that it is ideal to cite one source and one source only on this in the filmography.
 * What I would think to be a possible solution is:
 * 1. Putting a side-note in the comment section of the filmography that points out that there is a discussion on this on the filmpage.
 * 2. In the field "director", perhaps adding "unclear" or "disputed" instead of a "Yes".
 * 3. Not having Bruckner as single source, which I think is simply misleading. Instead, having no source at all on the filmography itself except the pointer that there's a discussion on the filmpage. If that is not advisable practice, having more sources on the filmography than just Bruckner alone.


 * What do you think about it? Flickyard (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think its better than putting a "Yes", so that sounds like the way to go. I'll see what kind of templates we can add and see what we can do. These Italian film makers have such a frustrating filmography sometimes! :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at Template:Yes, I would suggest using the unknown template for when it is unclear on how D'Amato worked. I also suggest using all the sources we have to clarify or expand on information that is not clear. While we are at it, are the years you are adding have specific dates in your sources? Or are they listed like Emanuelle does something (1975)"? Because we should be using specific dates. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify, when you are listing the D'Amato films by year, do they state they were released in that year or does it just say something like Contempt (1963)". If we do not have a release date for these films, they should not be used like this. How are they being used in your sources? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back to you on this earlier. I didn't get notifications, although I had the page notifications turned on...hmmm.
 * About templates: yes, some kind of "unknown" / "unclear" / according to some sources" template would be very good to have.
 * As far as the sources are concerned, it is sadly a rare thing, from everything that I've seen, for the sources to differentiate between the year of production and the release date. I do not see how this can be resolved, other than by perhaps signalling in some way that with some dates, it is unclear as to whether they are the date of production, the date of passing at the censorship board, or the actual release date. The book on early Italian hardcore films I am using, Grattaroli & Napoli 2014, is actually very precise on this distinction and provides ALL dates whenever they were accessible to the authors in some way. I would actually like to include their precise dates, since they also show the relative chronology of releases within a year.
 * Another thing: I would suggest splitting up the filmography in parts. Since it seems D'Amato did not write or direct any film prior to 1972, it might be useful to simply have a LIST of films that he worked on as a still photographer, a LIST of films that he worked on as camera operator, and one for cinematography.
 * As for D'Amato as producer, I would love to add the category equal to "director", "writer" and "cinematographer" and always also add the name of the company he used to produce the film in question, since there is some good and relevant information to be gleaned from the sources on this.
 * And, of course, the question of pseudonyms. I would like some way to add which pseudonym/allonym D'Amato used for which job on which film. Can I simply add pseudonyms to the "Yes" templates, or will that mess with the syntax?
 * Thanks for engaging in this, and sorry again for getting back quite late.Flickyard (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ok, just to clarify if the Grattaroli & Napoli are very specific with their year of release, lets use them. If not, I would suggest changing the year to N/A unless we can find sources for the year. I agree with adding a producer column and can add one if you don't mind. I do not think we should split up the filmography though. If he worked on a film production, it should be listed in the film. I did notice some television productions in there though, those could be moved to their own section. Again, great work all around! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The "problem" with Grattaroli & Napoli is that they only cover D'Amato's hardcore films, from 1979-1984. In this book, there is no information on the other films in the filmography.
 * I see where your doubts about including a year come from when the authors of the sources do not clarify what exactly the year they put in the text refers to. It is a real pity that the sources are not clearer on this. However, I see a problem with taking away the years altogether and putting N/A, since that would take away information that IS actually there, available and relevant. After all, when an author puts, say, "1951" for a film, it is either the date of production or the date of release, and this is an information in itself that, I feel, should not be discarded, as long as it is, of course, made clear that the sources leave it open which one it is.
 * If we simply put N/A instead, we would discard information and collapse the chronology of the filmography.
 * My proposed solution would be to put a note on all films in which it is not clear what the year given by the source refers to. Thus, I feel we would accurately reflect the situation in the sources.
 * What do you think?


 * As far as adding the producer's column, please go ahead. I would appreciate it a lot, since I do not know how to do it myself.
 * Is it possible to place the aliases D'Amato used in the column too, or should they go somewhere else? I would like to provide information on them, since it is an area where there is widespread confusion and misinformation on the web. Many of the sources I use have valuable information on this that is otherwise not easily accessible. A problem with pseudonyms could be that there are often many pseudonyms in one film: D'Amato signing, for example, with the alias "Joe D'Amato" as director, with "Fred Slonisko" as cinematographer, and with "Sarah Aspreoon" as allonym for his involvement in the writing process. So there would need to be space for all three of them? Or would it be better to keep this information separate? The current section on pseudonyms is frustratingly incomplete and partially incorrect. I would like to include the information in the sources in some way. Any suggestions would be welcome!


 * Regarding TV: As far as I see, D'Amato only worked for TV with the two episodes of "All'ultimo minuto". The rest was film or "video". "All'ultimo minuto" could of course be taken out of the filmography and put in separate place if that's the rule. We would lose the chronological overview over his work this way, though.


 * Again, thank you for your collaboration and valuable help on this, which helps me a lot to keep things precise.Flickyard (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that all the information they have! I would leave the D'Amato films in the sections they are in (i.e: approximate times), but I think its too misleading to state a year if the source does not state that was the year the film was released (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE for more information). I want a full filmography as much as anyone, but I also want the sources to match. I think adding another tag here would honestly make the template get a bit messy again, because since D'Amato's filmography is so crazy we'd be having point forms for everything. I have gone ahead and added the producer side bar, but I think we should move forward is noting which films do not have release dates credited (the recent ones you added that aren't from the source you said) and then perhaps moving that one tv credit out of his filmography and make a seperate one for television. Perhaps make a seperate one for direct to video or direct to television films? Its hard to say since you seem to know D'Amato's more than I do. As for the alternative names, I think we could go forward with expanding on how complicated it is in the "Pseudonyms" section more so if you can (if you have sources). That would help users no how complicated his filmography really is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)