Talk:Anarkali (2015 film)

	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 Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

"Age-inappropriate love"

Several times in the last couple of weeks, [1][2][3] editors have kept adding commentary to the article along the lines of "It is the second film that depicts age-inappropriate-love after Premam." Firstly, that's an extraordinarily broad statement that isn't properly expressed. Perhaps they mean it's the second Indian film? Maybe the second Indian, Malayalam-language film? But even then, who says? There are no independent Indian Malayalam-language films being made? No student films? And who said that there have been no "age-inappropriate" Malayalam films prior to these? And who's summarizing that it's "age-inappropriate"? That's very strange POV commentary that doesn't belong in the article. It's also vague. Do we mean that the film is inappropriate for people of a certain age to watch? Or that it depicts an inappropriate relationship between people of varying ages? Poor grammar, no idea what's being expressed. Another iteration of this statement is "This is the second in line of films that depicts age inappropriate love after Premam" which just sounds like someone deciding that there's a trend in film subjects or something. Unsupported analysis, and WP:OR. Again, the commentary doesn't serve any clear academic value unless it is being noted by reliable published sources, which is why I've removed it here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse all of the content in Cyphoidbomb's post here, having removed the offending comment too, only to be promptly reverted: [4]
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones It reads as odder-than-usual POV content to me. I wonder if someone's not just screwing around. Without discussion, it's difficult to tell. I've sent out three Talkbacks to the most recent IP editors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd. I shall continue to "watch". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]