Talk:Twilight language

message: Disagree with merge. Sri Yantra is the most common yantra and whole books have been written about it. While this article could certainly be expanded and there are dozens of yantra which could be listed here, Shri Yantra is significant enough for a whole article. IPSOS (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Twilight language (and the Sanskrit term from which it is rendered) is a valuable categorisation term that fords dialogue between mutually informing technologies and processes. I am godsmacked how you can dismiss it out of turn. 
*blinks in wonder*
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what's it got to do with this article? The quote is vague and has no infomation specific to yantra. It a non sequitur in the lead section of this article. Why not spend your time writing a proper article on twilight language? An article on the topic is quite obviously missing and the disambig page you created does nothing to remedy it. IPSOS (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trying to figure out where the book is being inserted and so far have found it on these articles, many with the same pattern of insertion of the book with no quotation or other citation that would justify placement in References (according to WP:LAYOUT).  Bucknell insertions:
*2 August: B9 hummingbird hovering Creates page for the book The Twilight Language: 
*2 August: Five_Dhyani_Buddhas: 
*2 August: Om_mani_padme_hum: 
*2 August: Chakra: 
*2 August: Mandala: 
*3 August: Yantra: 
*4 August: Mudra: 
*4 August: Mantra: 
Buddhipriya 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twilight language:  [[:wikt:gobsmacked|godsmacked]]    

message: Pretty well the entirety of this article is based on one source, Bucknell, Roderick & Stuart-Fox, Martin (1986). The Twilight Language: Explorations in Buddhist Meditation and Symbolism William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One source? 

message: I took out this section. The link is a 404 - but is at http://web.archive.org/web/20011125192228/http://tamil.berkeley.edu/Research/Articles/Twilight.html - but the text quoted is from the intro and not clearly what the article is actually about. If you can tell what it is about William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Tantric practice 

message: This article is a mess, perhaps comprehensible to those who already fully understand the subject, but incomprehensible to those seeking understanding. For example, the first section after the introduction, "Sonepur literature", is not connected logically with the subject. I'm sure there's a connection, but it's missing from this Wikipedia article. It's almost as though this article itself is written in an English-language form of twilight language. Unfortunately, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information, not to conceal it.
The entire article needs to be re-written by somebody who knows the subject and can construct a logically integrated, informative text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves (talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the lengthy section on "Still a problem solving" on this talk page years ago I provided quite a few detailed references showing that the entire concept of "twilight language" is dubious. The editor who was the main proponent of the theory has subsequently been blocked and has not been seen in some time. I do not think the article in present form is worth keeping unless it is rewritten to include refutation of the idea it promotes. Buddhipriya (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it stands, the article is at best a synthesis out of many primary and secondary sources, chiefly the eponymous book. It cannot be disputed that the book exists (I own it, I've read it) or that it discusses the idea of a 'twilight' or esoteric or coded language present in Vajrayana Buddhism.  What is far less clear is that the concept "twilight language" warrants an article of its own in the first place, and that if it does, that this is that article.  I would think whatever can be salvaged, if anything, might be profitably merged into another article (where, I am not sure). 50.164.202.78 (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very badly organized