Talk:Tachikawa-ryū

Speedy Deletion

If you wish to keep the article, please find some trustworthy sources. Bluefist (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tackikawa-ryu is difficult to find info on. It is old enough that most of the material is public domain. Beyond that there is a lot of unreliable info that is not included because it cannot be verified. This is why the article is so short and general. if others wish to add or edit and give citations that would be great. I simply don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayagriva (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the information on Tachikawa comes from John Stevens books, Tantra of the Tachikawa-ryu, and Lust for Enlightenment. If anyone knows how to add citations other than stating it in parenthesis) please fill free. I can ensure you that it is accurate. But also keep in mind that the information on Tachikawa-ryu is scarce and fragmented at best. It is listed here on Wikipedia because of its rarity and for fear if the little that is known about it is not consolidated somewhere it may go the way of the dinosaur. Also keep in mind the page is a work in progress. With time more sources will be found and cited along with the precious little info that is available on Tachikawa-ryu.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayagriva (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that the Sutra of Great Bliss was the main text used by Tachikawa-ryu. I would quote sources such as John Stevens, Tantra of the Tachikawa-ryu and James Sanford, The abominal tachikawa-ryu Skull Ritual. THese sources were cited MLA format but were removed for unknow reasons. I will post them again. I do not know how to enter citations Wiki style but if someone else does that would be greatley apprecceated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.141.76 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The article juxtaposes concepts coming from non-Buddhist sources (mostly Śaiva) with the more pertinent context of Buddhist Mantranaya. For example, the idea that the school was founded as an attempt to create a Japanese equivalent of Indian vāmācāra is perhaps to be re-considered (it is not clear whether this description is derived from the school’s self-understanding, or from a retrospective application of contemporary doxographical categories). Most of the references to non-Buddhist Tantric concepts should be re-considered for the very same reason.

49.49.131.4 (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Mattia Salvini

(I posted a comment in the following section "Deletion" which was obviously deleted. It may be relevant for judging the anonymous deletion request and was a direct answer to the unfounded argument against John Stevens mentioned there]

As it is you who has stated that John Stevens is "unreliable", it should be you "to make your case". You may by the way try to contact him. Unfortunately I couldn't find that you did it on WP:RSN, perhaps you have a link? As I am part of the "cult", there is no doubt for me that it still exists. It can be summed up as a way to enhance sexuality through spirituality. Otaku00 (talk)

I did not delete that comment because I thought it was in the wrong section. I deleted it because I thought that it was a troll who was attempting to interrupt our conversation.

I asked you to make your case at the WP:RSN because I thought that you would argue that Stevens is reliable despite his silly ideas, but I see now that you actually agree with Stevens’s silly ideas. In that case the appropriate venue is the fringe theories noticeboard.

However, you are wrong about the burden of proof. It is the editor who argues for inclusion who must prove their case. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not the editor. John Steven's is quoted from a fictionalized text based on actual knowledge about this sect - but that is only part of this entry and it doesn't make Professor Steven's (see his Wiki-entry) "unreliable". Perhaps the editor may just include more of the other sources given? Wiki-rules warn against comments like yours ("silly"). In that case your appropriate venue might be WP:PA You should read some of the PDFs that I have linked myself to get some knowledge about the topic. It is a practice, not an "idea", and whatever academics found that was linked wrongly to the Tachikawa-ryu can only help to get a deeper look into what might still be practicable (e.g. synchronization of breathing in lovers, a preference of "mind orgasm" over physical orgasm). In the end, this exactly might also invite pracitioner's to speak up and make it less "secret" or "cult".Otaku00 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that’s enough. You obviously aren’t here to contribute to this article in any meaningful way. I’m not here to listen to you rant. Nor will I waste my time having a conversation with someone who claims to be a member of a Buddhist sect that went extinct hundreds of years ago.

I have removed Stevens’s silly claim from the article [[1]] please don’t reinsert it. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

This article has serious reliability and verifiability problems. The overwhelming majority of this article traces back to John Stevens who is not reliable. Mr. Stevens believes that Tachikawa-ryu persists to this very day as some sort of secret underground sex cult. Additionally Stevens’s “Tantra of the Tachikawa Ryu” is a work of erotic fiction and certainly not a reliable source. The Tachikawa-ryu article on Japanese Wikipedia may or may not have reliable sources, but they aren’t doing this article any good, and there’s no indication that they ever will.

Additionally, parts of the article are written from such a ridiculously in-universe perspective as to be totally incomprehensible. This article has been tagged for years; it’s high time it got deleted. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I will now add several reliable sources. Nevertheless it is unfair to claim that John Stevens is not reliable. Otaku00 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You aren’t actually supposed to respond in this section. This section is only here because I, as an IP, am required to give an explanation on an article’s talk page whenever I nominate it for deletion.

Nevertheless, if you would like to argue about John Stevens’s reliability then I suggest that you make your case at the reliable sources noticeboard. Personally I think that Stevens’s “secret underground sex cult that survives to this very day” hypothesis is self-evidently a fringe theory and that Stevens is therefore a fringe author, but it would be interesting to see what the WP:RSN has to say about it. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)