Talk:Victim (1961 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victim (1961 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Vago, Mike (April 19, 2020). "Avert your eyes from this list of banned films". The A.V. Club.

Internal links

I have removed links in the film Infobox to Janet Green and John McCormick articles because they were the wrong Janet Green and John McCormick.

John Greaves 08:19, 16 May 2007

content is explicit

Although the content of the photo is not explicit, it is enough to suggest to a viewer the nature of their relationship.

I have deleted this sentence. What content? The viewer does not see any content. The inclusion of this sentence can then do nothing but convey the Wikipedia Editor's unsubstantiated opinion about what might be in the photograph.

I think this is a very clear case of an editor attempting to put his opinions in. I am a fairly neutral person and made the same deduction as the editor does, but to say "I think a viewer is meant to draw this deduction" in effect is not npov and it is original so deleted. 78.145.208.147 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to leave edit summaries

Bmclaughlin9, you've been making massive changes to this article without leaving any edit summaries to explain the nature of and rationale for your massive changes. Please remember to leave a detailed edit summary for each and every edit. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massive x 2. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmail and gay men

At the time this film was made, blackmail (in general) was still not recognized as a crime under UK law; this strange little "oversight" was to do with the idea that people should be quietly encouraged to feed information about matters large and small in the lives of people they casually met to the police, as such facts might be connected with cases of crime. But it was also connected with an antipathy to homosexuality. Actually, the recognition of blackmail in UK law in 1968 is near-exactly coeval with the legalization of homosexual acts: with the recognition of homosexuality, blackmail could be criminalized.

This connection to a "blind spot" in UK law at the time should be mentioned in the background section; it explains why the thought of taking the offensive against the blackmail gang and trying to get them prosecuted is so hard to settle on for the gay men in the film. The concept of criminal blackmail didn't really exist in the law (though it did exist in the law codes of many European countries, as some people would have been aware of at the time). 80.216.105.158 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]