This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
What is the point of having articles on the Angevin kings, the Plantagenet dynasty and the Angevin empire, as well as on all the individual kings? It seems redundant. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is Wikipedia really and you could also include the House of York and Lancaster articles—the point is it is the only way to achieve consensus on a number of issues. All the dynasty articles have a number of common challenges and the Plantagenet's have their own issues. Principally these are:
Personalisation—challenge in history articles to separate the personal information from the historical context to write a true biography i.e. what the kings did rather than what happened during their reigns.
Periodisation—the identification of distinct periods of history. Dynastys have been used to identify a period—for instance before Sabrebd edited separated out the historical information from the House of Plantagenet article it was really a history of the late middle ages from an historical perspective.
Historiography—many terms have been used but are now discounted by modern thinking e.g. Angevin Empire reads like a matter of fact but is largely considered never to have existed in a meaningful sense.
Definition—there is no consensus on what the House of Plantagenet consists of e.g. from Henry II to Richard III, or to Richard II, or from Henry III, Angevins, Plantagenet, York or Lancaster.
For what it is worth this article covers a family during a distinct period of history from the first French king of England to the loss of the historic ties to the French homeland and the beginning of England as a state. This is wider than the action of individual kings but dependent on the personal foibles of the family members. If you have an answer to these questions you are a better man than me! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It always struck me that this article was (or at least should have been, considering it was quite malnourished!) the place to discuss the Angevins and the 1st rulers of Anjou proper, to discuss the of the Frankish house that started with Ingelger through all the Fulks and Geoffreys to the cessation of the family's control of Anjou under John/Henry III. That would have included the overlap with the Plantagenet article at the end, but with a more of an Angevin (as in "of the region of Anjou" and its sphere of influence) focus. Its now taken a completely different direction, just to slot into the myriad of articles of the English kings, which as Norfolk points out, already duplicate each other with the many phases of House Plantagenet. I can't help feel that I can't help feel that a great opportunity was missed with the rewrite (well written though it is), but at least the page move allows for the future return of an article actually discussing the Angevins themselves rather than the Angevins-in-relation-to-England.
My biggest problem with it all is the "House of Ingelger" article that took mainstage as the new pre-Henry II Angevin article; maybe its from French academia, but I've never seen "House of Ingelger" used in English secondary sources, only "Angevins", "House of Anjou" and "the counts of Anjou" or variations therein for the family from Ingelger to Geoffrey Plantagenet w/son and grandsons. -- Sabre (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to complicate matters it seems like Les Ingelgériens is in fairly common french usage for the Counts of Anjou but predominantly only prior to 1060 when the first house of Anjou is considered to end.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
