Talk:Buddhism in Spain

Moved to draft again

Please don't move this article to mainspace without letting it be reviewed by an independent editor through the WP:AFC process. For example, we have the "sentence":

"In Seville and also in Spain, (see the book Buddhism in Spain, representing Buddhism in the Ministry of Justice during the creation of Article 16 of the Constitution on religious freedom, including the word "and community", later he Spain Jane created missions that still exist today. "

This is clearly not ready for mainspace, and putting it back there again and again is getting disruptive. Fram (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Apart from this, this article has the problem (shared with other such Buddhism in... articles from the same editor) that the sources don't match the sentences they supposedly source. E.g. this is used to source "However, some of its teachings, like reincarnation or karma, have partially syncretized with the cultural mainstream via New Age-style movements." (not in source) or "In 2013 were estimated 40,000 assiduous practitioners of Buddhism in Spain" (also missing). The two other bits it supposedly sources also are not present in the source. Fram (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Greenman

Hi, you accepted Draft:Buddhism in Spain for the mainspace. A bit strange, as none of the issues I raised on the talk page when I moved it to draft previously had been addressed (just like many other issues weren't considered, e.g. the number/percentage mismatch in the infobox). Please don't put such terrible articles in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

See WP:AFCPURPOSE. This in my opinion is a fairly clearcut case of an article that would survive WP:AFD. The issues you have raised can be tagged, fixed, removed as appropriate, but are not sufficient reason to decline the submission. Greenman (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the flowchart? An article which isn't reliably sourced should be declined. I have highlighted serious issues with sources not supporting the claims they accompany. Even without those, I wonder why one would deliberately put gibberish and incorrect claims in the mainspace in the first place. "Surviving AfD" just means "the topic is notable" (and not copyvio or attack page, which would require deletion in draft as well), AfC review requires a bit more than that. The very, very least one could expect a reviewer to do is check the issues which lead to draftification in the first place, but I doubt you actually looked at the talk page when reviewing. Fram (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's, as an example, look at the intro to the article: "Buddhism (Spanish: Budismo) is the one of the largest religions in Spain. The presence of Buddhism in Spain began in the late 1970s, brought from other parts of Europe, especially France. Despite its short history in the country, Buddhism was recognized as a deep-rooted religious confession in 2007, under official consideration. This recognition implies its comparison with most established religions for legal, political and administrative purposes." Ignoring that we get a grammatical error after just three words: this paragrapgh (of just the last sentence, who knows?) is sourced to [1], which verifies nothing at all in this paragraph.

Not an exception with this article, sadly: the first sentence of the history section is "The Spanish came into contact with Japanese Buddhists in the 16th century when some Jesuit missionaries settled in Japan and China." This is sourced to this, but surprise, that article doesn't mention China, Japan, Jesuits or missionaries, nor the 16th century.

Need I go on? Or will you accept that you perhaps botched this one, and remove your explanation from the top of the draft? I can add my explanation there as well if you prefer. Fram (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(End of copied section) Fram (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Reinstated in articlespace

Greenman and Fram, I've done some work on the referencing and spot-checked everything; I think the article is ready now (though perhaps not entirely perfect) and have approved it as such. Please let me know if you disagree. AviationFreak💬 02:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Fourth-largest religion in Spain

@PhilKnight: Regarding this edit, the source states "...mientras que el budismo es la cuarta minoría religiosa de España." I'm not a native speaker of Spanish (just took a few classes in high school), but I believe this supports the claim in the article that Buddhism is the 4th-largest religion in Spain. Google Translate translates this phrase as "...while Buddhism is the fourth religious minority in Spain.", which I suppose could be taken to mean 4th- or 5th-largest in the country. AviationFreak💬 02:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have self reverted. PhilKnight (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)