Talk:Kiss

message: This article starts off by saying "A kiss is the act of pressing one's lips against another person or an object."  What this tells me is that the nerds who write for VIKIpedia have no idea what a kiss is. Defining a "Kiss" as some kind of mechanical act is about the level of intelligence of an 8 year old.  Probably even an 8 year old knows better.  A kiss is not an "act".  A kiss is an expression, conveyed in a number of ways and to a number of degrees.  It involves much more than lips alone, and is more like an expression of acceptance or mutuality.  A kiss is not one direction unless someone is kissing an object that does not comprehend a kiss.  Let me give an example.  Try "kissing" a stranger on the street, by "pressing one's lips against another person." I can pretty much assure you the chances of getting arrested are very high.  Therefore, a kiss is not a unilateral act with another human being.  A kiss is a mutual expression of acceptance and bond.  It has nothing to do with PRESSING ONE'S LIPS AGAINST SOMETHING.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.165.172 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling a kiss an "act" is about as intelligent as calling a song "noise".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.165.172 (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Wiktionary definition is better: "To touch with the lips or press the lips against, usually to express love or affection or passion, or as part of a greeting." Encyclopaedia Britannica's is also better.···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 14:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Kiss 

message: The image of the "tongue kiss," previously described as a "gay kiss," is questioned. First, there is no way to prove this is a "tongue" kiss, aka "French kiss." The earlier description as a "gay" kiss also seems irrelevant, since there is no discussion of "gay" kissing in the article. Nor is there any way to tell if they're both male. And if there was a way to tell, there would be no way to prove they were "gay." The article does describe kissing between males in various cultures, with a photo, but whether they are "gay" is irrelevant, since there is nothing mentioned that describes gay kissing as different from straight kissing.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One could easily argue it is, as the section it is in is titled, an "Expression of affection and love". All we have to go by is what the original description says. By your logic, there is no way to tell the first pic is of a couple, since there is no link to the source saying that. Can you tell these two are young lovers? Your logic could be applied to nearly any of the pictures. CTJF83 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed an image you added a while back, and you are restoring the image by violating guidelines to assume good faith, ie. relying on libel and giving an offensive rationale. The attempted explanation above simply avoids the request made on your talk page. And if you think that some of the image captions are wrong, feel free to revise them. But adding another image with an equally wrong caption is not helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, there was no reason to remove the picture. CTJF83 20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it was added with an erroneous rationale and an expressed POV, is reason enough. Besides that, there are plenty of photos of people kissing, all of them "affectionate."--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You fail to give me any other reason for it's removal. CTJF83 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask whoever removed it, first. I charge a fee for clairvoyance work - plus you'll need an appointment.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it on my tab!...I highly doubt the IP with one other edit will answer the question, or possibly even edit again. CTJF83 21:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The top paragraph implies that this was not a neutral POV image addition. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I already changed it to a better caption. CTJF83 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I changed "reserved" to "often". Does that satisfy your concern? CTF83! 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of kisses 

message: Can we, please, remove the following section or at least provide a clear source for it: "In Slavic cultures until recent times, kissing between two men on the lips as a greeting or a farewell was not uncommon and was not considered sexual." Being Russian myself, neither I, nor my parents, grand parents, relatives or any of my friends have seen or heard that kissing between two men was or is considered normal. The only man who sometimes did openly kiss other men on the lips and it was somewhat tolerated was Leonid Brezhnev who was the leader of the USSR. Flamdring (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "reserved" to "often". Does that satisfy your concern? CTF83! 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sexual kisses 

message: :How the fuck is it given predominance, the first goddamn image is a straight couple, there is ONE gay image, not like there is 10, jesus. CTJF83 01:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to your earlier question, "where do you see the word gay?", I assume you don't need the answer anymore.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that mean? I'm only using it cause it is a few letters shorter than "same-sex". CTJF83 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I hate typing needless letters also, since they waste time and energy, when I could be doing much more productive stuff, like reading, eating, or paying bills. Besides, they hog up Wikipedia's server memory space, which means they have to get more contributions. So yeah, save letter-typing whenever you can, for god's sake!--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. Are you talking about :File:Kiss - Hiro at the Maritime Hotel.jpg? Is the person on the left necessarily even a guy? Can't tell. I would keep it but move it down, but I can't point to any reason other aesthetics. The gay thing isn't a problem (IMO) but it is pretty sexual. OK yeah the article is about kissing, which ain't vollyball, but still, aesthetically I like the Romeo-and-Juliet thing and the lovers-in-the-park thing and like that. IMO this makes the article more aesthetically pleasing and maybe more inviting to more readers (but I can't prove that, who knows); do we have to get right in people's faces right away with the the most sexual image in the article? Herostratus (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of those same issues were discussed in the earlier sections above.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, unless you're a prude. And you're right, you can't 100% say the person on the left is a guy. CTJF83 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Image moved to less "in your face" location per comments.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: RVT, ur the one that wanted RfC, so wait 30 days and for more than 1 comment CTJF83 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of removing the image placed with your non-neutral intent, per discussions, including your own, it is moved to text relating to men kissing other men. You reinserted the image with an unacceptable rationale, remember. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your opinion it was unacceptable rationale. By your wacky logic, it is non-neutral to have the straight image first then. You wanted to start this stupid RfC, wait the 30 days and for more than 1 opinion, whose only reason is aesthetics, no policy or any other reason. CTJF83 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite the contrary. You inserted the image calling it a "gay kiss," then changed it to "tongue kissing," and have reinserted it at the top of the article, calling every attempt to fix the issue a sign of "homophobia." Your edits are clearly disruptive and non-neutral.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no policy based reason to move or remove the image....and clearly you're non-neutral being a heterosexual. And what are you talking about, where did I insert it at the top, the straight kiss has always been at the top. CTJF83 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The article does not need any protection, since failing to keep the image where it belongs, per consensus, I posted the ANI. If admins don't see any problems from the long list above, I'm obviously not going to move it. Especially with some editor moving it up top and giving me a "final" warning. Me only, btw. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Given cross culturally the average rate of homosexuality is 8-15% depending on the study This article this article grossly exceeds the that percentage in you would expect to find in normal sample:
*A sample of 12 pictures scrutinized
*Same Sex Kisses = 7 
**:File:Kiss - Hiro at the Maritime Hotel.jpg Is clear same sex kiss
**:File:DickseeRomeoandJuliet.png is a clear example of Man in Drag kissing another man
**:File:Maestranza-1.jpg Again a man Kissing a male figure
**:File:Joan of Arc by Rossetti.jpg again a cross dresser posing as man kissing a phallic object 
**:File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg Again Men kissing Men
**:File:PopeKissing Feet.JPG This one is super disgusting Not only is male kissing a male but it appear to have foot fetish as well 
**:File:US Navy 060105-N-3019M-002 Boatswain^rsquo,s Mate 3rd Class Leroy Quinn kisses his son on the pier before departing aboard the guided missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93).jpg A Sailor found kissing another male.  
That means 58.7% of all images here have clear homosexual undertones! I suggest the Gay Mafia is at fault! With the blessing of our lord Jimbo I hereby ban them from Wikipedia. Thus potential Kids visiting this article will no longer be influenced by their insidious propaganda.... unless they happen to turn on Glee (TV series).  The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhh! It's worse than what you thunk. At least two of the images (#2 & #7) seem to involve minors. Therefore I ban you for linking to the images, not pointing it out and having a sense of humo(u)r. I also ban me for pointing this out. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation by  [[User:ResidentAnthropologist]]</small>

message: The comments above have suggested some locations to consider. To simplify reaching some kind of consensus, please add a brief opinion for the best location. If the other photo of men kissing seems sufficient, then "none" would be stated. Short comments here (KISS principle), with longer discussions elsewhere.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The other male kissing pic is completely different then a romantic gay kiss. CTJF83 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is fine for me...Yaksar, good luck on a reusable one from Flickr. I tried "gay kiss" and couldn't find any commercial reusable pics. CTJF83 11:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found another one on commons that could work - :File:Gay kiss.jpg. It's not perfect, but it's an option.--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work too...or, I could make one ;) CTJF83 04:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think you can deliver a better image, then go for it - I guess that would count as a WP:SOFIXIT solution.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, mostly just a joke. CTJF83 04:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a pretty good one too CTJF83 05:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Please see the neutral point of view policy - you may be blocked if you can't adhere to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument could also be made that including an image of gays kissing is itself non-neutral.  The image file is called "gay kiss." There is nothing in this article that discusses gays or homosexuality, and no commentary that would support an image of gays kissing, and an editor removing it is not censoring it. It would obviously fit better in an article related to gays. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The user was removing it not because of what you just said, but because he simply had something against homosexuals (see his edit summaries), which was clearly intended at censorship. The purpose of the image is not to demonstrate anything related to gayness, but merely to provide another example of kissing.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even considering his rationales, the editor has not added, as I can see, any negative material to gay-related articles. He simply removed a "gay" image from a "kiss" article, which he felt does not belong in the context. Your comment that this was just "another example of kissing," is contrary to the stated intent by the uploader (see User:Ctjf83 comments just above), whose clearly stated intention was to find and add a gay images specifically; his only decision was which one. The mere fact that some editor understood this, regardless of his feeling offended, does not warrant a claim of censorship or non-neutrality. On the contrary, the uploader of a gay photo, who states at the top of his User page that he "is proud to be Gay," could easily be violating SOAP guidelines. He even said that he looked in Flickr, " I tried 'gay kiss' and couldn't find any commercial reusable pics." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: His edit summaries and the comment above do not make me think that that editor really understood what you just said. But I agree, this article has too many images.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Location options

message: * Because it's the current location of relevant text (males kissing) and a similar image. The article does not discuss "gay" kissing or imply that "gays" kiss differently (see above, "Types of kisses").--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The other male kissing pic is completely different then a romantic gay kiss. CTJF83 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Contemporary practices" section

message: * I'd be inclined to put it here, though I'm not sure that the 'distinction between 'sexual' and 'romantic' means much. I'm also not sure whether this even is a 'gay kiss'. Is there a reliable source that states this? I'd not like to guess whether the person on the left is male or female (or whether the one on the right has any preference regarding this). Per WP:BLP policy, are we assuming to much, and engaging in WP:OR? Just a thought... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is fine for me...Yaksar, good luck on a reusable one from Flickr. I tried "gay kiss" and couldn't find any commercial reusable pics. CTJF83 11:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found another one on commons that could work - :File:Gay kiss.jpg. It's not perfect, but it's an option.--Kubigula (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work too...or, I could make one ;) CTJF83 04:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think you can deliver a better image, then go for it - I guess that would count as a WP:SOFIXIT solution.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, mostly just a joke. CTJF83 04:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a pretty good one too CTJF83 05:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Please see the neutral point of view policy - you may be blocked if you can't adhere to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument could also be made that including an image of gays kissing is itself non-neutral.  The image file is called "gay kiss." There is nothing in this article that discusses gays or homosexuality, and no commentary that would support an image of gays kissing, and an editor removing it is not censoring it. It would obviously fit better in an article related to gays. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The user was removing it not because of what you just said, but because he simply had something against homosexuals (see his edit summaries), which was clearly intended at censorship. The purpose of the image is not to demonstrate anything related to gayness, but merely to provide another example of kissing.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even considering his rationales, the editor has not added, as I can see, any negative material to gay-related articles. He simply removed a "gay" image from a "kiss" article, which he felt does not belong in the context. Your comment that this was just "another example of kissing," is contrary to the stated intent by the uploader (see User:Ctjf83 comments just above), whose clearly stated intention was to find and add a gay images specifically; his only decision was which one. The mere fact that some editor understood this, regardless of his feeling offended, does not warrant a claim of censorship or non-neutrality. On the contrary, the uploader of a gay photo, who states at the top of his User page that he "is proud to be Gay," could easily be violating SOAP guidelines. He even said that he looked in Flickr, " I tried 'gay kiss' and couldn't find any commercial reusable pics." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: His edit summaries and the comment above do not make me think that that editor really understood what you just said. But I agree, this article has too many images.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sexual or romantic kiss"

message: Being a classic-cartoon watcher, it seems to me there's something missing from the article, and that is the "Insulting kiss" which Bugs Bunny used to plant on Elmer Fudd all the time. That's a bit of antiquity, but WB didn't make it up: They got it from a Charlie Chaplin movie. So I have to figure it was already old even when Chaplin did it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Bugs is right about this (even if he is clearly pushing a POV, and risks being dragged before the Committee For The Protection Of Wikipedia From Usernames That Will Make The Sky Fall In, or whatever it is called ;) ). Without going too deeply into semiotics, I'd suggest that Bug's "Insulting Kiss" would be a useful addition, to counter the overly-functionalist tone of the rest of the article. The only problem with this that I can see is finding an appropriate image without running into copyright problems. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The old smack-a-roo, huh? Quinn ☂THUNDER 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: TV Tropes call this a Take that kiss.--80.28.202.253 (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insulting kiss 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Wedding kiss2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I'm not quite sure of how to add this, but there is the theory that the evolutionary purpose of kissing is to spread immunity to the future descendence of the Cytomegalovirus that lives in human saliva.--Pacostein (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary purpose

message: In the last paragraph of section 1; "Kissing in Western cultures is a fairly recent development and is rarely mentioned even in Greek literature."
then in the first paragraph of section 2; "It was well established in early Greece, Assyria, and India". Given the latter is cited and the former is subjective I suggest the first be amended.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.169.19 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not especially clear, but the history section notes that the kiss well established in early Greece, Assyria, and India was the kiss of affection, not romance, and the kiss of romance was only common later.  I've changed the first two read "Romantic kissing in Western cultures is a fairly recent development and is rarely mentioned even in ancient Greek literature."  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty obvious contradiction 

message: I looked up “History of kissing” in Wikipedia because I needed to know about the Romans' attitude towards kissing. The section on Ancient Egypt is excellent. The section on the Romans is shorter, but suggests there's a lot more information out there: "The Romans were passionate about kissing and talked about several types of kissing. Kissing the hand or cheek was called a osculum. Kissing on the lips with mouth closed was called an basium, which was used between relatives. A kiss of passion was called a suavium.[13]" 
Apparently there's plenty of information on the Romans available, but it hasn't found its way into this article. I clicked on the footnote to find the source which turned out to be a DVD called “The Ancient World according to Terry Jones”. For heaven's sake! You call that a reference? Anna Lowenstein (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would say that another Wiki doesn't qualify as a reliable source. However, novaroma.org (or at least the Kiss article) does a good job at citing sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kissing in Roman times 

message: I wish to correct something in the article, in Islam, kissing or touching of the opposite gender is not punishable by death.
The punishment largely varies depending on the circumstance and the marital status of the people in question.
Bluesteel649 (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It says it "can" be, not that it "is," and includes a cite which explains more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 13 May 2013 

message: I can understand that the section would have quotes from Crawley, who is a source that's not very good in terms of anthropology...
However, the sections in which the article DOES NOT quote needs to be changed. If there is no direct quote then it shouldn't be used. Plus, personally, I think Crawley is not NPOV and should be shown as such. The point made earlier about "well he's historical" isn't being balanced in this article by newer studies since he's being given undue weight in the article.
It's OK to say that the Ancient Greeks thought that the world was flat, until, say Archimedes(which is true). But look--it was *until* archimedesand it's not unrelated to the article. The idea of "primitive" human beings based on subsistence is unrelated to this article and should go into anthropology philosophy.
Beyond that, it's fine to cite him. But to choose him specifically for saying those statements makes it POV until you can get a more modern source. And please do not paraphrase him without making it NPOV. So I'm removing those sections that do so. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section 2

message: http://news.discovery.com/history/history-of-kissing-130214.htm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7348582 Adding these as a reference, downplaying Crawley since he's wrong. The majority of the sources I found say that kissing originated in India and then was imported by the Greeks by Alexander the Great and then imported by the Romans. Which makes his Western theory B.S. by current standards. Also going to add the bit about mothers to children bit, with more references. This should overturn the previous objections to Crawley. (Who is outdated and should be labelled as such).--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the History of Kissing

message: The section on history, those 'standing' on a number or references, is original research, much of it thumb-suck. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History is original research 

message: Mention the trauma of the
Granny Kiss
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpKHSHrtRHc
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq5WPkLCAiY
Jidanni (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Granny kiss  

message: there should be a section about it
200.112.101.119 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: non-kissing cultures

message: To the Wikipedia editor who reads this:
I’m the person who’d made the edit request on 2 October 2013 above. (The page was semi-protected then but seems to be open to the general user now.) I am making some further suggestions and would like some views on them. If they’re okay with a bona fide Wikipedia editor, then he/she could incorporate my edits. If there are no responses over the next fortnight or so, I’ll probably do so myself. 
I truly do not believe that kissing is something which had to have originated in one place, leave alone India. The bone of contention between User Hitsuji Kinno and me is Citation No. 3 in the Kiss main article, which (I believe) is a non-scholarly power-point presentation with the following claims (which I quote): 
1)	While the true origin of kissing remains a mystery, historians have found in India the earliest references to the practice.
2)	Around 326 B.C., kissing began spreading from India, thanks to the conquering armies of Alexander the Great. "They learned about kissing from the Indians. After the death of Alexander, his army split up and his generals went to various areas of the Middle East," Bryant said.
3)	The Romans were the ones who popularized kissing, spreading the practice to most of Europe and parts of North Africa.
I have done some research and present my findings disproving these claims in A, B and C below. After that, I give suggestions as to what the edits should look like.
A) Kissing was known in Greece long before Alexander went to India.
The following is taken from the paper ‘Give me a thousand kisses’: the kiss, identity, and power in Greek and Roman antiquity (Leeds International Classical Studies, Volume 6, 2007) by Richard Hawley of Royal Holloway, University of London, which can be accessed at http://lics.leeds.ac.uk/volumes.html#6:
“In Aristophanes’ comedy Clouds the pathetic ‘hero’ of the play, Strepsiades, describes the wealthy, pampered, and idle woman he married and includes among the many signs of her depravity ‘scent, saffron, and deep kisses’ (51). The Greek word used here is kataglôttisma, which differentiates this deep oral penetration (kata- compounds often signify downward movement) from non-sexual, affectionate kisses.19”
This clearly proves that sexual kissing was known in Ancient Greece at least during the mid-fifth century BC, which is more than a century earlier than Alexander’s excursion to India, from which he supposedly “brought back kissing to Greece”, according to Vaughn Bryant, at least.
B) Textual evidence of kissing outside India and predating both the Rig Veda and Mahabharata exists.
The following website gives instances of kissing in Ancient Sumerian literature:
http://www.humanistictexts.org/sumerlove.htm#9%20%20My%20Honey-Sweet
I quote the relevant lines from the following poems on the page:
(1) From My Beloved Met Me: “One by one "tongue making", one by one”
(2) From My Honey-Sweet: “The kissing of your lips is pleasant to me”
(3) From As I was Strolling: “Each of them in turn kissing with the tongue”
Citations are given at the bottom of the page for these poems, among which is the Oxford Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL). This site is difficult to navigate for a layman like me, and so I verified No. 2 above by doing a Google search for “Dumuzid-Inana B ETCSL”:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/tr40802.htm
No. 3 can similarly be verified, while No. 1 is from History Begins at Sumer, by Samuel Noah Kramer, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1981. Even the contents of Point C below qualify for Point B.
C) Parts of North Africa (Ancient Egypt) already knew about kissing long before the Romans.
The following came up during a search for Ancient Egyptian love poetry (mainly the Deir el-Medina poems). I had contacted the Magenta Hornet around the 25th of November, asking him/her (most probably a her) for references to the following poems on his/her webpage:
http://themagentahornet.com/ancient-poetry1.html
(1) From Letter from Babylon (2000 BC): “The wisdom of the earth in a kiss” 
(2) From Love Poem from the Middle Kingdom (c. 2000-1600 BC): “Finally I will drink life from your lips”
(3) From Poem from the 20th Dynasty (New Kingdom) (c. 1200 BC): “I kiss her before everyone”
Unfortunately, I haven’t had a reply till date and I think that I’ve waited long enough for one. Even the poems from the following webpage don’t have proper citations: 
http://www.love-poetry-of-the-world.com/Egyptian-Love-Poetry-Poem2.html
(1) From The Wine of Love
“And when her lips are pressed to mine 
I am made drunk and need not wine. 
When we kiss, and her warm lips half open, 
I fly cloud-high without beer!” 
(2) From A Woman’s Lost Love
“His kisses on my lips, my breast, my hair…
…Come! Come! Come! And kiss me when I die, 
For life, compelling life, is in thy breath; 
And at that kiss, though in the tomb I lie, 
I will arise and break the bands of Death.” 
I am thus (due to the lack of proper references) not entirely satisfied with using the above (contents of Point C) on Wikipedia. I’ll leave it to the editors to decide. Nonetheless, I’d like to remind them that at least some proper electronic citations are available which quote the actual lines describing kissing, unlike in the case of the Mahabharata and Rig Veda. Furthermore, in case someone has objections regarding knowing whether these are proper translations, then I can ask the same of the Ancient Indian ones. I mention this because there is an overwhelmingly large section of people who believe that the Ancient Egyptians at most knew the “sniff kiss”, although there are many who still dispute it, claiming (I believe correctly) that there has been no evidence disproving the existence of kissing in Ancient Egypt.
Now, I know that an edit request is supposed to put down the edit word for word, but in this case, I’m not sure how to do it, seeing that my findings contradict an already cited source and cover a range of sub-topics. Nonetheless, if the editor is willing to accept Point C above (Points A and B have what I believe to be citable references), then I can suggest the insertion and/or amendment of the following lines in the History section:
After Citation No. 2, before “The Vedic texts…”
“The earliest literate civilization in the world, Sumer, mentions both lip and tongue kissing in its poetry.” Appropriate Citation
After Citation No. 4, amend the line to “There is a theory that kissing originated in Ancient India and was spread to Greece by Alexander’s conquering armies.” Citation No. 3
Then, immediately add “Against that theory is the mention of deep kissing in Aristophanes’ play The Clouds, which was written c. 450 BC.” The Hawley citation, with the text which I have quoted in Point A above in the footnotes, since it gives us the actual Greek word used and its meaning.
Amend “The earliest known written reference to kissing…” to “The earliest known written reference to kissing in Hebrew is…”	
After Citations 5 & 6, add “Kissing is described in the surviving Ancient Egyptian love poetry from the late second millennium BC.” Above-mentioned citations 
I believe that this presents a more accurate picture of textual evidences of kissing from the main civilizations (the Sumerian and Egyptian predating the Vedic Indian) without totally compromising citation No. 3. 
A Happy 2014 to you!
14.98.199.147 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the History section (textual evidence of kissing) 

message: This is with reference to the section "Suggestions for the History Section (textual evidence of kissing)" above, which I had created. I had made these suggestions two weeks ago and wanted to wait for some editor to discuss it with me first. The page didn't seem to be semi-protected then because I'd said that I would implement them myself after a fortnight. Well, the page has become semi-protected again. Hence, my request to a Wikipedia editor to do them (hopefully before Valentine's Day ;)).
My suggestions as above (please read the above section for my reasons and quotations from various sources) are:
After Citation No. 2, before “The Vedic texts…”
“The earliest literate civilization in the world, Sumer, mentions both lip and tongue kissing in its poetry.”
Citations (please read the above section): http://www.humanistictexts.org/sumerlove.htm#9%20%20My%20Honey-Sweet
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section4/tr40802.htm
After Citation No. 4, amend the line to “There is a theory that kissing originated in Ancient India and was spread to Greece by Alexander’s conquering armies.” Citation No. 3 (It is mentioned in this citation; read what I have to say about it in the above section.)
Then, immediately add “Against that theory is the mention of deep kissing in Aristophanes’ play "The Clouds", which was written c. 450 BC.”
Citation:  ‘Give me a thousand kisses’: the kiss, identity, and power in Greek and Roman antiquity (Leeds International Classical Studies, Volume 6, 2007) by Richard Hawley of Royal Holloway, University of London.  
http://lics.leeds.ac.uk/volumes.html#6
Quote the following lines from the above citation in the footnotes:
“In Aristophanes’ comedy Clouds the pathetic ‘hero’ of the play, Strepsiades, describes the wealthy, pampered, and idle woman he married and includes among the many signs of her depravity ‘scent, saffron, and deep kisses’ (51). The Greek word used here is kataglôttisma, which differentiates this deep oral penetration (kata- compounds often signify downward movement) from non-sexual, affectionate kisses.19”
Amend “The earliest known written reference to kissing…” to “The earliest known written reference to kissing in Hebrew is…”
After Citations 5 & 6, add “Kissing is described in the surviving Ancient Egyptian love poetry from the late second millennium BC.”
Citations: http://themagentahornet.com/ancient-poetry1.html
http://www.love-poetry-of-the-world.com/Egyptian-Love-Poetry-Poem2.html
Please read my concerns regarding the genuineness of these last two citations.
Thank you!
Andrew Cabral 
14.96.213.43 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014 

message: Where I am from (Western Australia), it is normal when a man and a woman, or two women, meet in a social context, whether they are relatives or friends, or they are being introduced by a mutual friend or family member for the first time, for them to kiss quickly on the lips. This is a form of friendly, warm, welcoming greeting, but it is not accurate to describe it as affectionate in all cases (e.g. when being introduced to a stranger). This practice is widespread - also in South Australia - especially in rural areas. This is not mentioned anywhere, so I am about to go and edit the article throughout to include this mainstream phenomenon without implying that it is widespread throughout the world. When I moved to England at first I used to greet my female acquaintances like this in mixed company, and especially used to do it when close friends used to introduce me to their female friends, as I would in Australia - it took two years before someone said anything (no-one acted strangely at the time), and only then did I realise that it was not acceptable practice in England.
86.9.85.159 (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kissing on the lips as a greeting 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061026052832/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/10/17/dlkiss17.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/10/17/dlkiss17.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wondering if this meme has enough hold for it to earn a section mentioning it here, the concept of sharing a cup or whatever being considered a form of intimacy approaching a kiss, has come up in a lot of media over time. 64.228.90.179 (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. In my opinion, "Indirect kiss" is a frivolous urban expression. Also, it doesn't generate enough reliable sources to be mentioned here. -- Chamith (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Indirect kissing

message: That phrasing appears in the "kiss on the lips" section. Im pretty sure its vandalism, but can't figure out what it used to say to revert it. 96.28.39.103 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added in this edit, exactly as it now appears, so it was not vandalism to an earlier version.  AFAIK it is the French, and possibly other languages, way of referring to the XXI century or C21st.  This appears to correlate with the text and references following it, so I would suggest it is replaced by "In the 21st century" or something similar. - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The XXIe" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223014805/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960601/ai_n14047247 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960601/ai_n14047247
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fconnected%2F2006%2F10%2F17%2Fdlkiss17.xml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208001512/http://liberalarts.tamu.edu/html/news--first-kiss-how-we-learned-to-lock-lips.html to http://liberalarts.tamu.edu/html/news--first-kiss-how-we-learned-to-lock-lips.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823090009/http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=116267 to http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=116267
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315204048/http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter9/text9.htm to http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter9/text9.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: El cid, el campeador, regarding this, I don't see anything unencyclopedic about the image. By this, I mean that I don't see the image as any less encyclopedic than some of the other real-life images in the article. I think the IP's issue is that the article mainly shows kissing between heterosexual couples and that it can afford at least one image of a gay or lesbian couple kissing. Sure, the article currently includes :File:Caravaggio - Taking of Christ - Dublin.jpg, but that is not really a gay kiss. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presumably gay male couple image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20141204235151/http://tamunews.tamu.edu/valentine%E2%80%99s-day-story-starters/ to http://tamunews.tamu.edu/valentine%E2%80%99s-day-story-starters/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is missing any mention of the French custom, and that of a few other countries, of greeting not just loved ones but friends and acquaintances with kisses on both cheeks. This is an obvious cultural difference between France and Anglophone North America at least, and a fairly significant part of French culture. It ought to be addressed somewhere in this article.2601:85:C202:150:55A1:A7B7:2104:F6DA (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: French kissing has an article of its own. And, as the article is open for anyone to edit, you are welcome to improve the article on your own. -- ChamithN (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Les bisous missing 

message: Mothers kiss their babies in order to detect what pathogens they're exposed to and produce milk to help with immunity.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1442-200X.1994.tb03246.x Benjamin (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mothers 

message: All the images were that of population of European descent, and thus this article painted an eurocentric picture. We could use at least one image that picks from non-European population. To that end I replaced the lede image with the best I could find (whilst retaining the theme of a mother kissing her child). —Srid🍁 14:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images are euro-centric 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yankee Dime. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hog Farm (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Yankee Dime" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: It looks as if placed under a filter. 
The Chromatic Aberration, crop ratio, and specs of dust over the lens lead me to believe it is a social media filter. Perhaps a better image could be picked?  Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not fan of image for "A homosexual couple kissing" 

message: Why is there a picture  of lesbians kissing each other but there is no a picture of gay men kissing each other? and the rest are straight people --Eddiitt0 (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The images on this page change regularly.  If you want to add a good image of gay men kissing, go for it.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is homophobia