Talk:Kingdom of Kongo

Games in Kongo.

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

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 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

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

Map of Kongo

Could someone please make a map of the Kongo, in the standard form of maps on Wikipedia (like )? 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

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

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)

Social structure, again

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

• Encyclopedia of African American History, Volume 1, p.62 By Leslie M. Alexander, Walter C. Rucker

• Almanac of African peoples & nations, pp.435-437 By Muhammad Zuhdi Yakan

• The history of Congo, p.27 and onward By Ch. Didier Gondola

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

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