Talk:Kingdom of Kongo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Portugal (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Africa (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Games in Kongo.[edit]

Hi!

I had a question on the Wikipedia reference desk about the section of this article that talks about games played in Kongo - and specifically the game: 'nclaca'. I did a lot of searching around and I can find NO references to this game in books or on the Internet. Since the information was added by an anonymous editor who has never added anything else to Wikipedia - I'm deeply suspicious of this information. Notably, the William Holman Bentley book which supposedly talks about games played in the Kongo makes no mention (according to my search on Google Books) of a game by this name.

I think it's nonsense - so it's gone!

SteveBaker 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Sounds like a reasonable action to me.Scott Free 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
On second thought...we might need to put that section back after all. The following section in googlebooks (which I found in all of 30 seconds) seems to back up some parts of the game section. Check it out...http://books.google.com/books?id=N65pbr2hC4wC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=bakongo+games&source=web&ots=2HGd7AtRnR&sig=N3ptl4z6oQanWTFJIJ3Byvq2Wjc#PPA102,M1

Scott Free 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


An Expansion[edit]

A note to all those who love and modify this article. I've made a lot of changes in it, some reorganization, particularly to take the general description out of the pre-fifteenth century part and put it in the seventeenth century part, since it is really based on that material. I've also added a few references, but I need to do more (help welcome). I've also expanded a lot the later years, and made smaller changes here and there. Beepsie (not signed in for now)

All the work done on this section was reverted about two hours afer I finished. I would like to reverse this revert, but will wait a few days before doing soBeepsie (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to its 15 December version to preserve the changes that I made, inadvertently not signed in, on that dayBeepsie (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks are due to all editors who work conscientiously and collegially to improve this article using cited sources and prose that conforms to our Manual of Style.
It is very dispiriting to editors to have their work simply reverted without adequate explanation and dialogue and this is a breach of civility for which editors may be blocked (even without technically breaching WP:3RR):
  • Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  • If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.
  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
  • There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Alice 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Beepsie, I reverted you because you reverted my edits... all of them. I know you reverted me because you removed all of the references I had added. Perhaps this was an accident? The organization in your version of the article is not the problem. The problem is that your changes violate a number of stylist rules - improperly capitalizing subsection titles, repeating references with ref names, etc. A number of your references have 20 pages listed for one fact. Is this because they are from JSTOR? In that case, please login and find the specific page you are looking at before inserting the reference. Either that or just use the book without the page number. Another repeated problem is the use of passive voice which should be avoided whenever possible. Jose João (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove other editor's comments, even if you disagree with them.
Please would you also provide a link to a Wikipedia style guideline or policy to support your assertion as to "passive voice" - especially as I know you feel very strongly about this. Alice 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Chunks of coppied text disract from the statement being made, use links and quotes that are specific to the topic from now on. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

(Edit conflict) You are being silly, again User:Perspicacite (aka Jose João).

Since I can see no mention of "passive voice" whatever in that very long post you just made, would you be kind enough to revert yourself, please? (Update: a sensible editor has now removed your irrelevant comments).

If there is no justification for your assertion about passive voice then just simply say so rather than play silly buggers. Alice 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Knock it off. Avruchtalk 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Map of Kongo[edit]

Could someone please make a map of the Kongo, in the standard form of maps on Wikipedia (like LocationDRCongo.svg)? Because that Map photo that is there is too vague. Thanks


64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC).64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that'd be great. I was thinking the same thing.64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC).64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC).64.88.170.32 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC).


This is exactly what i wanted to talk about. i understand that this empire consisted of these provinces but i could not find the land area of Pool region that includes brazziville. heres the information on kingdom of congoes territories i could find. Name...................founded...........Area..(miles).......info


Kongo Kingdom........1395 to 1914......129,400.(1650 AD)

..Angola

....Cabinda,Angola...1885(protectorate)...3,020.5

....Zaire,Angola.....????...............24,935.62..part of Mbundu vassel

....Uige,Angola......????...............36,473.25...part of Mbundu vassel

..Dem.Rep of congo

...Congo Central....????..................33,504.335

....Kinshasa.........1881(leopoldville).....3,847.5

..Rep.Of the Congo

....Brazziville......????.....................?

for my list of kongo kingdom and its territores to be complete i need to know about the province that has braziville. then we can work on a simplified history that goes from exaspansion to decline acording to the data set i have decline seems to go in two parts the 1500 to 1800 perid and 1880's to 1914 period .i need to know when these provinces become part of kongo empire.

99.164.123.146 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Start date[edit]

In the article lead it gives the start date of the kingdom as 1400, but in the infobox it says 1395. Though it seems that there is no exact start date, or even year, these dates should anyways be coordinated into whichever that is most correct. -GabaG (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

i think start date was 1395 its reliable casue the africans would have been sure of this year when the portugues got there later in the early 1400's and when they said it began to them the start of the kingdom would have been well known. as for other kingdoms in this period 900 to 1500 there were others in the area of kongo kingsom like Mbundu vassel to the south border and villi vassel to the north border. keep in mind not all of the lands of Africa were occupied by kingdoms and states this seems to have accured recently at the end of the 19th century. it is known that in the period from 1500 to 1800 the Kongo kingdom did go into decline and places in its territory had broken away and become independent such as Luango kingdom which is were Vili vassel had been the Mbundu moved east into the interior and were they were once at become the towns of Ambriz and Luanda .Ambriz was independent but luanda was portugese. the lunda which were a minor tribe in the 900 to 1500 period had become a very large empire in the centuries to follow they subjugated the Chokwe and luena-lovale also the Luba were subjugated. The exspansion of Kongo's neighbor the lunda most have been a interesting story also. id go along with the start date of 1395 for kongo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.123.146 (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Social Structure Section[edit]

I am planning on removing the section labeled "Social Structure" which relates to homosexual practices. The references cited there to not relate to the Kingdom of Kongo, nor to my knowledge were such practices ever reported for the kingdom. The last line, containing a reference to Cadornega's Historia geral is an appropriate reference to West Central Africa (the earlier ones do not even relate to the general region), but applies to the Kimbundu-speaking area, specifically the "kibandas'. James Sweet has written about his in his book Recreating Africa. It would be appropriate to move that line, and fuller references drawn from Sweet to that location (Kingdom of Ndongo or Kingdom of Matamba). I will return and make the removal in a few days. Beepsie (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)beepsie

  • Yeah that section looked a bit funny to me to.Scott Free (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chibadi thing that is being persistently presented in that section has nothing to do with Kongo. Interestingly, it is a copy and paste from another Wikipedia story in a different context. Persistently maintaining a misleading information is vandalism. Anguluma (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's acceptable within Wikipedia to repeat other portions of Wikipedia. Could you or your sockpuppet account provide a link to which Wikipedia article it was originally used from? Also, you have just shown that you do not know what Wikipedia considers vandalism. Sourced information intended to expand the article is not vandalism; vandalism consists of changes that are not made in good-faith. Could you or your sockpuppet account provide any sources showing how that section is misleading? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It's also in Kingdom of Mutapa. A quote from the source mentioning Kongo: "Similarly, in 1680, Cardonega noled: "Sodomy is rampant among the people of Angola. They pursue their impudent and filthy practices dressed as women. Their own name for those (of the same sex] who have carnal relations with each other is quimbanda. Some quimbandas are powerful wizards, who are much esteemed by most Angolans" (1680: 86, translation—S.O.M). Clearly, chibadi, chibanda, chibados, jimbandaa, kibamha, and quimbanda are related terms. Given the participation of such individuals in the religious rites of the Kongo kingdom, it may be that the term (and the role) diffused with the expansion of that state." Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Social structure[edit]

Right now the section describes matrilinial succession and the Chibadi. Undue weight is an issue, so I've gone to Google books to look for more sources.

So far, I've found

There's plenty there to expand on the article instead of trying to censor it.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel, as I did in my earlier posting, that the question of chibadi does not belong here. It is not attested in any source that I know of for Kongo, including the manuscript and unpublished sources (most notably the visit of the Inquisition in 1626, where such things would be investigated). The kimbanda (pl. jimbanda) in Kimbundu speaking parts of the region are definitely attested, as the quotation from Cadornega confirms. But this practice was confined to a particular religious group and was not general, and thus should be considered a religious practice not a part of the social structure; and there is ample room for including this language in the articles that deal with the Mbundu. Even there, it should be given its Kimbundu name (kimbanda) and not one drawn from a Southeast African language.

I'm planning on deleting this whole section in a few days, but I want all interested parties to have their say first.Beepsie (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothered, and I note that material on the social structure in earlier versions seems to have been deleted. The edit warring and sock puppetry didn't help at all though. Thanks for responding. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Map[edit]

I have deleted the map on this page entitled "Kongo in 1711". While it had good aesthetics, it was completely inaccurate, and I have replaced it with a map I drew in 1977 as part of my PhD thesis. I spent a good deal of time on this map, and drew it directly from primary sources, including the travel accounts of Luca da Caltanisetta, Marcellino d'Atri, Bernardo da Gallo and Lorenzo da Lucca. I was also guided by Jean Cuvelier's various maps. I'm quite sure it is accurate both in its topographical detail (I used the Angola Cadastral survey maps at 1:250,000 to draw the underlying geography) and in its historical depictation. Beepsie (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Kongo as a Kingdom vs a Vassal[edit]

Hi Cristiano. I am writing about the Kingdom of Kongo article. I'm not sure how much you have researched that particular subject, but I see you insist that it should be portrayed simply as a vassal of Portugal. I disagree, because Kongo didn't become a vassal state of Portugal until way into the 1800s. I see you claim that Portugal dominated Kongo and brought religion, trade and administration. I will grant you that Portugal influenced Kongo in all these things, but it did not bring them to Kongo. All of these things existed there before the Portuguese arrived. Kongo was never formally or informally dominated by the Portuguese. There were never very many Portuguese there and much of what the Kongo royals used from Portugal was simply overlayed on top of Kongo institutions. Lastly, Portugal was in no position to dominate or dictate anything to Kongo until at least the 18th century. Aside from a one or two battles, Portuguese soldiers and their dependents regularly were trounced by Kongo forces. I just don't see Kongo operating as anything other than an independent state until the 1840s. If there is something I missed, please let me know. I want to discuss this and not make it an edit war. I respect your opinion. I will change the status back to kingdom; however, until you can make me believe otherwise. Thanks for your time.

Scott Free (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • As a side note, even though Portuguese was used in the majority of written text between Kongo and Portugal (which I guess only makes since) it never replaced KiKongo as the official language of the state.Scott Free (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Scott,
I see your argument, but one cannot diminish the incredibly large fact that the Portuguese influenced the Kongonese kingdom. I just find it that this article doesn't give credit to the great role the Portuguese played in the Kongo. I see your arguement for language, as Portuguese would have been only used by the royal Kongese court and officials. As per stating the vassalage of the state, I find that necessary, because it did in fact occur. This article covers the entire Kongo Kingdom history, and it was a vassalage for a piece, which is quite significant and important, because it was really only a formalization of an already exisant fact. I will spare you the language, which should be included for the fact that it was used by officials and royals, but the vassalage title should stay, no? The reader will then see, after reading the article, that the vassalage came to play later on in the kingdoms history, but I find it to be quite important. I am very happy that we are discussing this amicably. I hope we may find a solution. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree Portugal did have a huge influence on Kongo. That is one of the things that makes the kingdom so interesting in my opinion. No where else in the history of Africa did you have a mixing of cultures like in Kongo. John Thornton and Linda Heywood have an excellent book on what they describe as the Atlantic Creole (really Luso-African) culture of the region and how it influenced the Americas via the slave trade. We could do more to highlight the Portuguese influence (I don't think this article mentions enough about Portuguese education in Kongo or introduction of valuable crops that enabled the population to grow so much). The vassalage did occur. I just think it was more a clifnote in the overall history of the state. The fact that Portugal had been trying to get vassalage out of Kongo since the Jaga invasion is important, but it just didn't materialize until Kongo was fractured enough for the nobility to invite teh Portuguese in. I think that by 1850 you couldn't even be a mwenekongo without support from Luanda (Portuguese Angola), but prior to that the Kongo nobility decided how the kingdom ran and who ran it. If we put the vassalage title at the start of the article, I think it paints a picture of a kingdom that operated simply as a Portuguese satellite state, which it was not. We wouldn't start off the Asante Union article stating it was a vassal of teh British Empire or Imperial Japan stating it was a possession of the United States of America. Let me know what you think, and thanks for responding. Scott Free (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)