Talk:Anglo-Vietnamese conflict

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

@Andrew Gray, Kanguole, Acroterion, Nthep, Hawkeye7, Vladimir.copic, Suasufzeb, Iazyges, Dumelow, Slatersteven, Laska666, and Mztourist:

You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Vietnamese conflict (1808). The result of that discussion reduced this page to a dab of one, which has now been PROD'd by Shhhnotsoloud. In checking how the phrase "Anglo-Vietnamese conflict" is used, I came across this dissertation from last year, which says, in a footnote on p. 4:

The conflict mentioned by Lin Zexu is likely to be the Anglo-Vietnamese conflict in 1808. Lin later showed the drawings to Wang Zhongyang (汪仲洋), a county magistrate in Yuyao, Zhejiang, during the Opium War. See Wei Yuan 魏源, Haiguo tuzhi (海國圖志 Illustrated gazetteers on maritime states) (Shaoyang: Gu wei tang, 1852), juan 84, 27a, 28a–b.

I do not know if Sau-yi Fong was influenced by Wikipedia in drawing her conclusion, but it an independent reference to an Anglo-Vietnamese conflict involving ships from prior to 1852. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:n, a one-line mention (especially in a doctrinal dissertation) would not be enough for anything other than a mention in another article. Even then it might fail wp:undue (who is Sau-yi Fong, even they do not seem all that sure). Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't one line. It is one line on top of the other sources already mentioned in the deleted article and AFD. This is Sau-yi Fong. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks for finding it! I think this is still consistent with the earlier conclusion - this isn't something that actually happened, it's got confused with something else in the histories - but it does make me wonder if we're getting close to finding the original source for it. Andrew Gray (talk)