Talk:Kiss

What is a Kiss

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)

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)

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.[1]···Vanischenu (mc/talk) 14:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Types of kisses

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)

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)

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)

Like I said, there was no reason to remove the picture. CTJF83 20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

You fail to give me any other reason for it's removal. CTJF83 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

The top paragraph implies that this was not a neutral POV image addition. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I already changed it to a better caption. CTJF83 21:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-sexual kisses

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)

Shouldn't the following phrase be removed? "Western mouth to mouth kissing is reserved for sexual foreplay." Obviously, western mouth to mouth kissing is NOT reserved for sexual foreplay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.83.150 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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

RfC: Placement of kissing image

Should an image of gay kissing be given predominance in a general article about kissing? Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The image moved to the "Contemporary kisses" section was done to conform to the section which discussed males kissing. It was renamed to better describe the photo which, for one, states "this photo of gay kiss," in its description page. In addition, it's used by another user discussing "gay sexual practices," and "homosexuality." It's also used on a few other related non U.S. articles discussing homosexuality. It's placement near the top of a general article about "kissing" is insisted upon by User:Ctjf83, who coincidentally states at the top of his own user page that "This user is proud to be gay." Simply relying on WP guidelines about obvious connections, it's reasonable to assume the photo is of gays kissing, at least that being the intent of the photo.

Placing it near to top throws off the balance of illustrations by giving obvious predominance to gay kisses, when, according to statistics gays comprise about 2% of the U.S. population. Including the image allows it to make up 10% of the photos, more than a balanced image, so its placement alongside text referring to male-male kissing, with a related photo, seems logical. It was restored with the rationale "no where in original Flickr caption does it say gay men," which makes no sense. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look, the CAPTION on the original photo says "Kiss / Hiro at the Maritime Hotel / 20070910.10D.45462 / SML" where do you see the word gay? What kind of ignorant homophobia is "giving obvious predominance to gay kisses"?? There is one picture of a gay couple kissing. Your comments are ridiculous and further the homophobia on Wikipedia. There is no reason what so ever we can't have one picture of a same-sex couple kissing. Clearly if there was 5 or 10, ya, that would be ridiculous, there is no reason not to have 1. No where in Kiss#Contemporary_practices is the word "gay" mentioned, nor does it refer to same-sex kissing in a romantic sense, just in a greeting sense which is common in other parts of the world. CTJF83 23:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the image, it states " this photo of gay kiss appeared on Flickr's most interesting among 18,000 others." I agree that the word "gay" is not mentioned in the text, however, which is another reason why the illustration lacks relevance. But this is not the first time you have casually accused editors of homophobia, without reason, to support your edits. When your slander was pointed out for an explanation on your talk page, your response was "How else would you explain an edit like this??? Removing the gay image only?" This kind of aggression, self-contradictions, and slanderous editing is highly disruptive, besides appearing immature in the extreme. It explains your deletion request of two "non-gay" males kissing, even though it does partially illustrate the text, whereas yours does not.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What else would you call "giving obvious predominance to gay kisses"? I don't see you suggesting this pic be removed. By your logic, it should, because blacks are a minority, only 12% in the US and we wouldn't want to give "obvious predominance", that blacks are a majority in the world. CTJF83 00:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Your sudden decision to delete the image of two "non-gay" men kissing, despite its context in the article, is more obvious bias. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a valid reason for delete, ie, it isn't on a page about the 30th anniversary of GDR, it is on a kissing page, which can be portrayed by a free image. CTJF83 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Some of those same issues were discussed in the earlier sections above.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Image moved to less "in your face" location per comments.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

RVT, ur the one that wanted RfC, so wait 30 days and for more than 1 comment CTJF83 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment I have full-protected the article for three days due to edit warring. This RfC will continue after the protection expires, but I urge all involved parties to discuss before making further edits to the page regarding the disputed image. Further edit warring may result in a block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Scratch that; I was in a protection-conflict and Airplaneman (talk · contribs) protected it for five days (based on my time zone; until April 9) at the same time. That is the time it will go to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Re-scratch that; protection has been restored by Airplaneman to three days. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Arbitrary Brake #1

Just to bring this to some form of an understanding, Wikiwatcher, WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't count here. The fact that there is an image of a homosexual couple kissing in an article about KISSING isn't an issue per WP:CENSOR. We don't censor things here, and from the looks of your talk page, you've had issues with policy violations before. When I went to fetch requesting the full protection, you're lucky that he didn't block YOU for WP:3RR as you were the individual who made three edits for the actual violation to take place. You have no grounds to remove the image, the image is not in violation of ANY policy, and therefore I recommend, as a 3rd opinion, that the image remain in place at the articles current state once the full protection expires. Dusti^*poke* 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are clear, but have nothing to do with the issues:

1) I never stated, or even implied, that I didn't "like" the picture; 2) I did not "remove" the image; 3) I relocated the image to text related to the image, i.e. alongside the other male-male kiss photo, so it was not "censored; 4) Your "final" warning on my talk page had no basis and should be removed since it reflects a hostile attitude-editors don't just post "final" warnings without any prior warnings. And had you done so, you would have warned both parties; 5) Your pointing out some disputes on my talk page history are strange, since you chose to ignore the fact that the other user has had a number of edit warring blocks. If you read any of the talk page comments, you'd quickly see that your conclusions are all irrelevant to the basic issues. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(INDENT FURTHER). What are the basic issues? If you reply with a screed of text, I probably won't read It. If you reply with a concise on-topic explanation, I may. If you tell me to go back through the yards and yards of previous bickering, I haven't time. Moriori (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Start at the beginning of the RfC tag section above for the quickest summary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it now. You want an image hidden down the page. Moriori (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Warnings are discretionary as to the level they are given, considering that you took this from the COI noticeboard, to an RFC, to AN3, to AN/I shows me that you have no clue about policies and that you disregard civility, collaborative editing, and the entire nature of Wikipedia as a whole. You disregard due process, how things are supposed to be done, and the fact that you don't care about what others think. Just because you think something should be done a certain way shows you don't understand collaborative editing. You don't understand policies, you don't understand that we work together, and you don't understand that when someone disagrees with you, you have the right to defend your position, but you don't have the right to continue to edit the article to make it the way you want it. Dusti^*poke* 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, using "simple logic" is not discretionary, however. In case you actually care, some IP removed the gay image; after it was restored near the top, I relocated it to relevant text, and even told the user why on their talk page; after it was again moved up, I later added the RfC, and if you find time to read it, you'll see that the editor agreed that it was "in your face" and should be relocated. The only other editor who restored the image to the "in your face" location, is you. By my reckoning, that's 3 to 2 to keep the image to a relevant location. It's not me that's having a problem with caring about collaboration or what others think. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're showing that you don't understand community discussions or consensus. Dusti^*poke* 01:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC

With all due respect Dusti, this edit of yours was quite misleading. For one, you stated that the image was removed - it was simply relocated. Second, your statement about being a "respected member of the community" may come off as haughty to some (including me). Likewise, your post directly above doesn't do anything but inflame matters further. @involved people: This section is fittingly named "arbitrary brake #1" – put on the brakes and carefully assess the issue based on facts, not the perceived faults of one another. Airplaneman ✈ 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The "respected member of the community" portion of the comment was to state that 1. I'm respected 2. My account is in a good stance (no recent blocks, edit warring, etc.) and 3. Wasn't intended to be "haughty". As to inflame matters, I'm simply giving my 3rd neutral position opinion. The user above disregards all formal procedures, steps out of bounds, and when he doesn't get an answer he likes, he simply moves onto the next noticeboard and cries (without sugar coating the truth). I'm fed up with it. Dusti^*poke* 02:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

My "edit warring" prevention effort ended with the admin stating, "As for the other issues, take it up at WP:ANI if desired," which is exactly what I did. I try to follow rules. I used the article's and user's talk; I posted an RfC and even got consensus. It's only been the other user and you that are turning a minor image placement issue into a battleground, including misusing the "final warning" tag on my talk page.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL Really? Consensus? Google consensus, find the en.wiki version of consensus and tell me your findings. Go to the AN/I thread and read the fact that the thread you opened is CLOSED because it's a CONTENT DISPUTE and also read the closing admins statement. And again, the final warning tag was placed because you don't recognize the fact that you're also edit warring. Again, see the closed AN/I thread for more information. Before you even consider replying, read WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS and grow up. I'm done replying here. (oh, and before you come running back to tell me that you did get consensus, re-read WP:CONSENSUS and read it one more time, just to triple check that you understand. And just in case you still don't get it, read what consensus is not. Dusti^*poke* 02:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Really. Maybe instead of calming User talk:Ctjf83 with soothing supportive words, you should instead warn him not to inflame previously-neutral articles with replies like: 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. And while you're at it, suggest that calling everyone else who doesn't agree with him "homophobic," is not wise, if he wants to be as neutral as you. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point. The question starting this RFC is "Should an image of gay kissing be given predominance in a general article about kissing?" My view is that this question is factually inaccurate as the image is not predominant. That being said, the particular kiss at issue is pretty sexual, so that I'd say it is a bit out of place next to the "Expression of affection and love" section. So, as an editorial matter, I'd say the image would be a more accurate illustration of the "Sexual or romantic kiss" section.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It boggles my mind that this is an issue needing an RfC. The image is fine, and edit warring to take it out seems completely juvenile. -- ۩ Mask 04:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dusty says: " We don't censor things here ..." LMAO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.165.172 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Observation by User:ResidentAnthropologist

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)

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)

The issue with this particular image really shouldn't be about whether it is gay, but rather..

• I don't particularly care whether the kiss is gay or straight or whatever. That being said, the picture certainly seems to be unnecessarily sexual, especially for the section it is in. There are plenty of other images of kisses, regardless of gender, that would be much better for an "Expression of affection and love". A wedding, for example?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly expect a kiss reflecting affection and love to be passionate. It's not in a section titled 'Platonic Kissing' -- ۩ Mask 04:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd hardly see that picture as the best expression of affection and love. It certainly is passionate, and it is more sexual, and there's nothing wrong with that. But this section's image should be a kiss that is considered the best we can find that exemplifies the concept of an affectionate and loving kiss, regardless of whether it's gay, straight, white, black, whatever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Wikiwatcher1, it appears your "consensus" of you and one other person has been turned around. I have no problem moving it to the romantic section of the article. CTJF83 09:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be removed. I wonder why it was placed there in the first place? If people find it offensive, it should go. What's wrong with a man and woman kissing?

If people find it offensive it should go is actually the exact opposite of what en.wiki's policies are. WP:NOTCENSORED means there has to be an actual encyclopedia-related reason. -- ۩ Mask 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving the picture to the romantic section would be logical, and I wouldn't oppose it. That being said, to be honest, I don't particularly like the image, not because it's gay, but just because it seems so much more, well, carnal, than the rest. It just seems to stand out like a sore thumb. Why don't we find an image of a different kiss that still demonstrates what we need. I've got no issue with it being gay, and hell, at this point I think it would probably be better to use a gay couple, since I don't want it to be like we're backing in the face of homophobia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Freely admitting I have not read through the entire lengthy discussion...I think you have to include an example of the french kiss, just because it's so different from the more traditional puckered mwah kiss. But I don't think the caption of affectionate is exactly accurate for this type of kiss. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinn1 (talk • contribs)

I posted the following on April 4 at the ANI (I have amended it slightly): The problem I see about the kisses is not the gender of the kissers but the POV about what type of kiss it is. The homosexual couple currently labeled "Affectionate kiss", is an open-mouthed kiss that strikes me as more lustful; indeed, in the diffs presented it was initially subtitled "Tongue kiss". A grandma kissing her grandson on the top of the head would be a fine example of an "Affectionate kiss", and I think that a big open-mouthed tonguing should be labeled for what it is, with affection being shown as something that is not carnal. Which is not to say that a gay couple sharing an affectionate kiss should not be our image, just that this isn't that image. As with the primary, heterosexual, photo, which is billed as "romantic", I doubt that kisses performed at a public function convey what we are intending by the labels "Romantic" and "Affectionate". "Perfunctory" and "Show-off", perhaps.

As to changing Communists to Judas, I think the point of what an article like this would be advised to convey is that there are more than baby kisses, Wedding day kisses, and porn kisses, nor whether or not we show a homosexual kiss (of course it is POV not to in an article that has a dozen photos), but that there are many cultures where males kiss affectionately without a hint of eros or romance (not just Communists, but including them—would you prefer Muslims?), and that there is a counterintuitive "Judas kiss", as in the expression "kiss of death". In other words, show all of the above, but more accurately labeled. Abrazame (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Location options

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)

"Contemporary practices" section

• 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)

The other male kissing pic is completely different then a romantic gay kiss. CTJF83 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sexual or romantic kiss"

• 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)

• Put it here if we stay with the current image. Following up on User:Yaksar's point above, I did go looking to see if there was another good same-sex image that would work better in the current location. The best I found was File:Gay.jpg, but it's not an especially high quality image.--Kubigula (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

  Might I suggest Flickr? It lets you search for images by license, and I'm happy to upload any properly licensed images to use if someone finds a good one. And please note, while I recommended finding an image of a gay couple just to solve this tension, that by no means is the only option. If you find the perfect image for what we're looking for, we should use it, regardless of the genders (it's just as bad to discriminate one way or another). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

That would work too...or, I could make one ;) CTJF83 04:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Haha, mostly just a joke. CTJF83 04:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty good one too CTJF83 05:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Any reason the homosexuals need to interject their nonsense in every possible aspect of life? goodness... — Preceding unsigned comment added by c (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Insulting kiss

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)

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)

The old smack-a-roo, huh? Quinn ^☂THUNDER 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

TV Tropes call this a Take that kiss.--80.28.202.253 (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is related to the "kiss of death" as well, which is a sort of promise to kill someone at a later date I believe. 68.60.2.11 (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Wedding kiss2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Wedding kiss2.jpg, 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)

Evolutionary purpose

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.[2]--Pacostein (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

move for the removal of homosexual kiss picture

why is homosexuality being driven down the throats of civilization all of the sudden. it is completely unnecessary for that image to be there. or if that image should be there then there should be a lesbian kissing image as well. which there is not. who put this image up and why is it important for this article to show homosexuals kissing. homosexuality will never be accepted and commonplace simply because it is not prevalent. it is the extreme minority and nowhere near a social norm. i dont understand the point of that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

why has heterosexuality been driven down the throats of civilizations all the time. it is completely unnecessary for those images to be there. or if that image should be there then there should be a homosexual kissing image as well. who put those images up and why is it important for this article to show heterosexuals kissing. heterosexuality is already well known to all the readers and does not need to be demonstrated here. it is a extreme majority, and whether or not something is a a minority or majority is a totally relevant reason to whether or not it should be included on this site, despite WP:NPOV. i dont understand the point of the above rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs)

Or, TL;DR, don't be a homophobe. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I *like* your comment Ian? CTF83! 10:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish to register a complaint about the article showing two males kissing. My complaint is, Where are the babes? Prairie dogs, you've got. But no women kissing women. What's up with that??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fairness, homosexuality of both sexes should be represented, and not for more inappropriate reasons... >_> Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This one seems like a reasonable example. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we need any other pictures, I think people understand what a kiss is by the other ones. As far as quality if you ignore my opinion and add it anyway, it's a good picture to add. CTF83! 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty obvious contradiction

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)

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)

History section

This entire section is problematic. Ernest Crawley is extremely biased against indigent civilizations. A "universal expression" not practiced around the world is not exactly universal. The last part talks about dating and not kissing and does not belong in this section. I'm moving the content to the talk page for further discussion and replacing it with historical information. USchick (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The origins of the kiss were studied in the early 20th century by anthropological writer Ernest Crawley. He wrote that kissing was "a universal expression in the social life of the higher civilizations of the feelings of affection, love (sexual, parental, and filial), and veneration." According to Crawley, touch is "the mother of the senses," and the kiss was a tactile and specialized form of intimate contact. However, he notes that the act of kissing was very rare among the "lower and semi-civilized races," but was "fully established as instinctive in the higher societies." Yet even among higher civilizations Crawley saw differences: while the kiss seems to have been unknown to ancient Egypt, it was well established in early Greece, Assyria, and India.

The kiss of lovers, according to 19th-century anthropologist Cesare Lombroso, originated and evolved from the maternal kiss. Crawley supports this view by noting that Japanese society, before the 20th century, was "ignorant of the kiss except as applied by a mother to her infant," while in Africa and "other uncivilized regions," it was commonly observed that neither husbands and wives, nor lovers, kissed one another. However, kissing was common among the Greeks and Romans as when parents kissed their children, or when lovers and married persons kissed. The kiss in Western societies was also used in various religious and ceremonial acts, as where the kiss had a sacramental value. Crawley concludes that generally, although kissing was prevalent in some form since primitive times, it "received its chief development in Western culture."

In modern times, scientists have done brain scans on people when a romantic relationship progresses. Some studies found that after that "first magical meeting or perfect first date," a complex system in the brain is activated that is essentially "the same thing that happens when a person takes cocaine." In studies of affection between lovers, when participants viewed images of their partners, their brains' ventral tegmental area, which houses the reward and motivation systems, was flooded with dopamine, an internal chemical that is "released when you're doing something highly pleasurable ..."

Your revision may have created more problems than the few it tried to repair. First, it's wrong to remove reliably sourced material or quotes based on your personal opinion about its author. In any case, most of the material needs to be restored simply to avoid violating WP guidelines about censorship.

Some of the other additions, such as the recent NY Times clip, should be placed in context instead of as a separate focus on India, a poem, and undue attention to some professor. But your rationale for removing some other material, that "A 'universal expression' not practiced around the world is not exactly universal," is mostly irrelevant. As the original text made clear, his research took place a hundred years ago, and he was referring to "higher civilizations" as opposed to "lower" ones.

You also rewrote material inaccurately: The original material stated, "The kiss in Western societies was also used in various religious and ceremonial acts. . . ", your revision became, "it received its chief development in Western culture where it was used in various religious and ceremonial acts. . ." Leaving out the word "also" totally changes the context of the statement in an important way. I assume that was a mistake. I agree that the dating material doesn't fit well, however, and should be removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

References

I tried to revise the section to incorporate the valuable added material. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The concept of "higher" and "lower" civilization is not a concept accepted in modern science. Other people besides Ernest Crawley studied kissing and placing too much emphasis on his studies goes agains policy Undue weight and Neutral. To claim that non European civilizations are "lower" is Systemic bias. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. USchick (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Modern" terminology can be added alongside the early terms if you feel that some might not understand: ie. "less developed," "undeveloped," "third-world," etc. But it's not clear why his research is non-neutral. If there are other published sources about the history of kissing then they can be added also, but otherwise there is no undue weight to citing his research. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern terminology does not recognize "more" and "less" developed civilizations. His statements from 100 years ago show Systemic bias and need to be updated to what the scientific community recognizes today. USchick (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then do some research, find some sources, and add the information to the article. You can't remove sourced information just because it's old and you don't like it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The following statements are problematic and need to be reworded.

• "a universal expression in the social life of the higher civilizations" - it's not universal and there is no such thing as higher civilizations.
• the act of kissing was very rare among the "lower and semi-civilized races," - scientists do not recognize lower races or lower civilization.
• while in Africa and "other uncivilized regions," - seriously? Where are these uncivilized regions located on the world map? USchick (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, they do not need to be reworded, as it is already clear that they are from an old source. That's what he said at the time, and it's not up to you or anyone else to edit that. As I said - feel free to find more recent studies and add them, but there's nothing wrong with that one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone from 100 years ago claims something that's not supported by anyone else, in direct contradiction with modern science, and you think it's not POV? USchick (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your use of some creative essay which implies that all WP editors "discriminate" because they belong to a demographic group that knows how to read, write, or use the internet, is not a proper rationale for a non-neutral tag. The tag, per your talk page descriptions so far, does not belong unless you explain per actual guidelines. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:POV WP:DUE WP:RELYUSchick (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You now need to justify per "real" guidelines why those link issues pertain to the material. None of the above comments does that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:POV Ernest Crawley's view about "low" and "high" civilization is not supported by science. His view on kissing is supported by other scholars and that information about kissing can be explained without using terms like "low" and "high" civilization. He is biased against non European societies, which makes his statements POV. Relying on research from one outdated opinion is undue weight, making him an unreliable source. I introduced another scientist Elaine Hatfield, with an opposing view who claims that kissing is NOT a "universal expression" and you said that was irrelevant. How so? USchick (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm in my 8th year of editing here and I'm an administrator. You can rest assured I am aware of these policies and guidelines. They do not pertain to this. NPOV refers to article content created for Wikipedia, not to authors of verifiable sources. The fact that it is old does not make it unreliable; the source shows what previous studies found, and for that it is absolutely reliable. If you feel it's undue weight, you can find more recent studies and add them, but you can't just remove stuff you don't like. End of story. Stop wikilawyering and go find some sources. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no scientific opinion that supports "low" and "high" civilization and your status as administrator will not change that fact. USchick (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Many cultures thought the earth was flat, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century. There are written documents to support that. Are you suggesting that WP remove all text from such older, outdated, documents, now that "modern science" has revised our understanding? Should we remove any authors who used the terms "horseless carriage" or "talking pictures" for the same reason? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To expand on what Wikiwatcher said: The article is only stating that there was a study, not that the study is correct. That there was a study is a fact. The source is reliable for proving that there was a study. Nobody said anything about it being accurate. The article doesn't say that one civilization is higher than another, it just says that that guy said so. It can still be included in the article, whether or not it is correct by today's standards. It is your point of view (and mine, and presumably most other people's) that the study is outdated and ignorant, but it did exist. All you have to do - seriously, all you have to do - is find other more modern studies and use them to balance out the article. There's really nothing to argue about. After all this time spent arguing about it, you could have just done that. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 00:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort. There are two issues here. First, the idea that kissing is universal. According to Charles Darwin kissing is not cross-cultural. [3] Vaughn Bryant is an archeologist [4] who studied kissing for 20 years and determined that it's not universal. [5] According to this source [6] in 1929 Crawley wrote that kissing was "not found in much of the world" so it being "universal" is contradictory to his own claim based in Ethnocentrism. On the same page, it talks about kissing not being accepted in Finland which is also European and "high society." According to the NY Times, in Muslim societies, kissing the hand of the wrong person even today can be punishable by death. [7] The second problem is Crawley's WP:FRINGE view on civilization, which has no place in an article about kissing. The statement that Africa and "other uncivilized regions," is an example of WP:FRINGE and unsupported by any modern historian or any body of science. Which brings me back to my original request to update the article with reliable information. USchick (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any point in talking to you. Find new stuff or don't, I don't care, but the sourced content stays. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the sources I provided above? USchick (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary, required, or even logical, to have "modern historians" confirm anything that a published author writes as "correct" by current standards. Should a literature professor censor Heart of Darkness as reading material because they didn't think the title was proper for our enlightened but delicate readers? Quite the contrary. The fact is, Crawley or any other author could call anyplace "uncivilized", or call a woman a "chick" if they wanted, even today, and still be citable if it's used in context. "Kissing" is not a science. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not questioning Crawley's opinion on kissing, only his misguided opinion on civilization which has no place in this article, especially when people like Charles Darwin and many others disagree. They are just as published, if not more so. Putting all the emphasis on his opinion is WP:POV and WP:DUE. Darwin is not a modern historian and he disagrees. Would you like me to find more? USchick (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that kissing is not a science? Because according to reliable sources it is. Look up Philematology [8] [9] [10] [11]. Since you happen to be wrong about this, is it possible you may be wrong about anything else? USchick (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You could find a thousand sources to disagree, and Crawley's study would still stay in the article. There is absolutely nothing you can say or do to change that. What you can do is add more information to the article, citing the sources you mention. There's no point in listing sources on a talk page - do something with them. Short of that, this conversation is pointless. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to be accused of edit warring when I remove the comments about Africa and "other uncivilized regions." USchick (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You won't remove them. You will add content from the sources you found. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing what happens when admins stop bullying editors who actually know what they're taking about. :) USchick (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing what happens when editors stop thinking they're being bullied and do what they were told at the very beginning: "If you feel it's undue weight, you can find more recent studies and add them, but you can't just remove stuff you don't like." Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 12:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this article would benefit from a more complete history of european romantic kissing, I'm still not clear on when it became a norm rather than "occasionally documented". Happeninger (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone should fix the grammar in the final sentence: "and in even in modern Muslim society" 09:11, 27 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.9.188.28 (talk)

 Done. Text stricken thusly: "In India, on-screen kissing has been banned by Indian film censors until the 1990s, and in even in modern Muslim society, a man who kisses or touches a woman who is not his wife or relative can be punished by death." —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Kissing in Roman times

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)

After writing the above note, I discovered this page with extremely detailed information on kissing in Ancient Rome, with 137 references. If I can manage it, I will substitute it for the Terry Jones reference mentioned above. http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Kiss Anna Lowenstein (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Edit request on 13 May 2013

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)

It says it "can" be, not that it "is," and includes a cite which explains more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

History Section 2

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)

Changing the History of Kissing

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)

History is original research

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)

Edit request on 2 October 2013

This is regarding Indian "origins" of kissing:

"Vedic texts of ancient India dating 1500 B.C. talk about rubbing noses together. About 500 years later, it was written about in the epic poem, Mahabharata.[5]"

The first line is entirely unsubstantiated. Nowhere are the Vedas mentioned in the given citation. The line should be removed. The second line gives a wrong date for the Mahabharata. In written form, it can be dated to no earlier than the 4th century BC and even that is contentious. Furthermore, the citation gives no description of the kiss purportedly being described in the Mahabharata.

The second one:

"Despite the origin of kissing thought to be in India, on-screen lip-kissing was not a regular in Bollywood until the 1990s, although it has been present from the time of the inception of Bollywood.[19]"

Again, the origin in India has no proof whatsoever. The given citation is just a page listing some kisses in Bollywood. Nothing scholastic at all. The part "Despite the origin of kissing thought to be in India" should be removed. No concrete evidence of any kind has been provided, no quotation from the literature, either primary or secondary. Even citation [5] above is just a journalistic piece about today with no historical backing at all.

14.98.140.254 (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Partly done:. Thank you very much for these corrections. I have tagged the statement about the Vedic texts with {{citation needed}}. If no citation is forthcoming in a reasonable time, then it can be deleted. I have corrected the statement about the Mahabharata and removed the phrase about the origin in India. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispute it, because if you bother to go to the second page it *does* mention it.

I'll quote:

"Four major texts in the Vedic Sanskrit literature suggest an early form of kissing. Dating from 1500 B.C., they describe the custom of rubbing and pressing noses together."

If you see the shiny blue button below with a series those are pages made by javascript. It's substantiated by the page as mentioned originally. Please restore the source. And don't be lazy about pressing the shiny blue buttons. Really look at the source. If it's established once, it doesn't have to be reestablished in the article. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Original poster claiming against the sources cannot figure out how to get to page two in the references even after I gave clear instructions on how, which is why he's claiming that this non-Indian person who linked Discovery.com to someone who is clearly not Indian in authorship (Lorenzi) is an Indian nationalist. *cough* *cough* Learn a little tech savvy--the reference listed the author and the date of access plus deleted the Eurocentric comments from that outdated source. There is a page 2, both references are reputable for Wikipedia (NPR and Discovery channel). I majored in anthropology. Do you dislike the idea that the alternate theory of kissing India originated the kiss THAT much that you have to insist that someone who added the majority of the History section and the alternate theory of how kissing started is an Indian Nationalist? I laugh. I added the Terry Jones reference, the NPR reference, and the bit about the Romans. And I would have added the bit about Alexander the Great spreading it too, but I couldn't find a reputable reference. I guess that makes me a British Nationalist, an Italian Nationalist (Lorenzi is not Indian), a Mascedonian Nationalist, a North African Nationalist and a Greek Nationalist too. For adding those references. Or it might just be that I think that guy, Crawley is a shame to anthropology, out dated, Eurocentric and he needed to be killed from the article because he was POV. Check the edit history. I do put up documentation with my edits. Also check the author to double check. You'll see the list of my edits have been doing things like chasing down China for not putting in CE into their articles, giving India's sections a hard time, fixing references and chasing Sailor Moon articles (if you had some savvy). And if you can't figure out how to get to page two after clear written instructions and feel like posting to my page again about how I'm an Indian Nationalist and want to lecture me for a few pages on how my references from Discovery Channel are wrong, please read the rules of wikipedia. And get someone to figure out how to get to page 2 for you. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

To whomsoever it may concern

I, Andrew Cabral, made the edit request on 2 Oct. 2013 above. In response to User:Hitsuji Kinno's post on 16 Oct., I explained my request to him on his Talk page on 17 Nov. He replied on 24 Nov. there and then composed the above missive here. I am pasting my communication to him and his reply from his Talk page so that one can read what I have to say and how I do it vis-a-vis what he has to say and how he goes about it. Let any third person decide for himself/herself whether he is justified in his stance.

Original communication to Hitsuji Kinno followed by his reply:

Edit request dated 2nd October on the "Kiss" Talk page

Hi Hitsuji Kinno!

I’m the person who made the edit request regarding the Indian “origins” of kissing on the 2nd of October 2013, which Stfg saw to on the 6th of the same month.

I’ve had reason to check up on this page and these kind of things in general on Wikipedia. If you go to the Talk page of the Wikipedia article “Man”, you’ll be able to read all about it. Let me give it to you in short. There is a group (a large one at that) of Indians who indulge in boosterism (as I’ve learnt to call it) on the net in general and Wikipedia in particular. The idea is solely to claim India as the origin of a whole gamut of things without any real scholarship at all to back those claims or very poor scholarship (when there is ambiguity). Furthermore, they will not argue rationally and will literally stop at nothing to propagate what they wish to be known to the world at large.

Now, let’s get to the “kiss” issue. Citation No. 5, which was in the article when I’d made the request, did not mention the Vedas. Citation No. 6 on the present page does mention what you say. Firstly, the West in general misunderstands India, and what is not understood too well is often glorified. Traditional Indians don’t know when to begin dating their texts; they were either there right from the beginning of the universe (I’m not kidding!) or date to some hoary antiquity which you and I can’t imagine. The discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization brought western historians to about the date 1500 BC for the composition of the Rig Veda (and hence the start of the Aryan period in India). It is acknowledged that the last of the four Vedas, the Atharva Veda, was composed in about 1000 BC, the Yajur Veda about 1200 BC and the Sama Veda somewhere between the Rig Veda and the Yajur Veda. It is also universally accepted that the four Vedas were composed before any of the other (numerous) works. The impression that the line you have quoted gives is that there were four texts from 1500 BC which talk about kissing. Even if I am wrong here, the fact remains that Citation No. 6 does not give any lines from the texts which would verify this. I have read parts of the Rig Veda and I did come across a few lines exhorting men and women to copulate in the sunshine (or something like that, if I remember correctly), but nothing about kissing per se. The lines from the Song of Solomon have been quoted in the Wikipedia article and the sources are genuine sources (one primary and the other a published secondary one). Surely Citation No. 6 cannot be taken seriously. It’s basically another ten-slide affair, with no citations of its own. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is not the kind of citation which Wikipedia should have to offer the general public.

It’s also a matter of commonsense and rationality, if you really think about it. Kissing would rank, in my opinion, along with some other human achievements (like language, agriculture, etc.) which could be called basic/natural, in that it would be absurd to try to trace them to a single common source. These things developed in different places along different lines and at different times. It seems ridiculous to state that the Greeks and Romans had to wait till they heard of kissing from India. (Ovid's "Art of Love" predates the Kamasutra by at least two centuries!) And what about the Egyptians, who have an attested history going back to 3000 BC and who gave us the modern romantic notion of the wedding ring? Also, given that (i) the use of the mouth to taste, and (ii) the fact that the genitals in human beings are so located that intercourse would naturally lead to licking, sucking and kissing are both biological notions that are probably as old as the human race, wouldn’t it again be ludicrous to think that only a mere two to three millenia ago (which is 0.1% of the history of the human race as we know it today), people started to kiss, and that too in one geographical location? India, Greece, Ancient Rome and Egypt are all either tropical countries or close enough to the tropics. It would make more sense that peoples living in frigid conditions (like the Eskimos) would have felt the need to indulge in kissing out of sheer necessity (both as a means of increasing body warmth and as a reminder that one is not alone in a harsh Arctic land).

Basically, one should be careful in today’s internet world, where everybody has a lot to say but very, very little of it is of any worth. I repeat: 1) I believe that the claims do not hold water; 2) The purported “lines” from the texts are neither quoted nor are the “source citations” convincing to any degree; 3) I believe that this is part of Indian boosterism, either by Indians themselves or non-Indians who don't really know much about India. If you read what is there on the Talk page of “Man” and check Jimmy Wales’ Talk page (where I brought it to his notice sometime in mid-October; it would be in one of the archives by now), you’ll get a better picture of what I have to say. Mr. Wales himself wasn’t interested and neither were the editors who responded (in the large), but I happen to be Indian and living in India. I know what’s happening. I see either falsehoods or exceedingly ambiguous notions being reported in the newspapers or on Indian websites which can more often than not be traced to Wikipedia. And Indians then take great pride in these things, which only contribute to their store of accumulated hubris. It's okay to be proud of things that are true, but not when they're not. A lot of the latter happens in India, probably more so than in any other country.

I’m pasting this on your Talk page and not on the Talk page of “Kiss” because I’m not sure that you’ll get to read it there. You may of course paste it back on the “Kiss” Talk page, as other editors have done. I look forward to hearing from you. Till then, take care!

Andrew Cabral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.76.29 (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitsuji Kinno's reply on his Talk page:

I'm not Indian for the record, and you have to just realize there is a page 2. It's just a little tech savvy. Restore it. Because you can't link to page 2. I'm 100% sure it's there. I cross referenced the sources too. And it's from a reputable website, discovery.com, who runs several documentaries, written by someone who is clearly not indian, if you actually bothered to look at the reference. I'd recommend looking at the dots at the bottom of the page I referenced and clicking on the shiny next one. I'm mostly annoyed because making references in wikipedia takes a lot of work and I double verfied the material.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My reply to both his posts:

Dear Hitsuji Kinno,

After having read your reply on your talk page and your response on this one, I have the following things to say to you:

1) In general, your tone is rude and demeaning, and you have no cause to act as such given that I’d written politely to you.

2) You charge me with not having gone to your precious page two in the citation mentioned when it is clear from my reply that I already had.

3) You conveniently arrive at conclusions and extrapolate along them when my original communication doesn’t afford you any such scope.

4) You fail to address my arguments against the Indian “origins” (or any particular region, for that matter) of kissing, yet take it upon yourself to insult me.

I shall now substantiate each of these points.

1) This is self-evident to anyone who reads our respective communications. Even if you disagree with me, there is no excuse for your boorish conduct. I shall also point out that you first replied to me on your Talk page (03:58, 24 Nov.) and then composed your missive on the Kiss Talk page (04:06, 24 Nov.). You were marginally polite on your Talk page and then downright insulting on the Kiss Talk page, even when there was very little difference in the content of both posts. Why the difference in attitude over a few minutes’ time and across space from an ostensibly private page to a decidedly public one?

2) The reference which you are so fond of, namely,

http://news.discovery.com/history/history-of-kissing-130214.htm,

was checked out by me before making the edit request on 2 Oct. I’m not tech savvy at all, but one doesn’t need to be tech savvy to have checked it out in its entirety. No, I didn’t need your little shiny blue buttons at the bottom of the page to do so because, you see, there’s this dull red button on top of the picture which reads NEXT (the later ones have PREVIOUS too). There are also right and left arrows on each slide of the slideshow which perform the same respective functions. Didn’t I call this citation just another ten-slide affair, meaning that I’d gone through each of the pages? (Actually, it’s eight and not ten. So sorry for that mistake on my part! I wasn’t actually counting the number of pages.) We’ll come to the webpage’s authenticity as a reference later (see Point 4). So, “original poster” didn’t need your “clear written” instructions. I’m sure neither did User:Stfg.

3) You don’t need to tell me that you’re not Indian. With a name like yours (assuming it is your real name), anyone can tell that you’re at least of East Asian descent (even if you live in some other part of the world). Add that to the fact that I happen to have some knowledge about distinguishing amongst the Chinese, the Koreans and the Japanese, I have taken you right from the beginning to be Japanese. Correct me if I’m wrong! There is also the fact that you seem to have a problem with the Chinese (the post right before my 2 Oct. request and your reply). I’m also very aware that Rosella Lorenzi is an Italian name, thank you very much. Tell me, where did I claim that either Lorenzi or you are Indian, leave alone Indian nationalists? Point out the lines! I remember saying that there are quite a few Indian nationalists out there who misrepresent history and that there are a lot of non-Indians who don’t know India and its history too well who end up furthering those nationalists’ cause. Do you disagree that I’d said this and not anything remotely implying you being a potential nationalist from a whole host of countries? Basically, cut the crap! And stop being smart-alecky (“cough cough”) when you have no cause to be. It only makes you look like a fool. I’m neither interested in chasing your Sailor Moon articles nor the purported savviness required to do so. Let’s stick to the Kiss article. You’ve also exhorted me to read the rules of Wikipedia regarding citations. Aren’t there some rules on the site on etiquette, which you sorely lack?

4) Thank you for informing me that you majored in Anthropology. It’s good to know that you’ve had an education. All the more reason for you to make it clear in the article that there are two schools of thought (one for a common origin and one against it) instead of pushing your views and railing against Crawley. Tell me, is there a consensus view that he’s outdated? You are also silent on my arguments against a common origin. Are they that hilarious that you were gob-smacked on reading them? You asked me if I dislike the Indian-origin theory THAT much (your caps) that I had to insist that its appearance in the article was due to an Indian nationalist. Yes, I’m against the theory. Never claimed that it was due to an Indian nationalist. I said that it adds to their hubris, which is dangerous. Now, you tell me, are you so against the theory against a common origin that you have to insult someone who doesn’t endorse your view? Keep laughing! It’s going to turn sour. I’ve been searching and finding references which negate the Lorenzi-Bryant citation. (I was pretty sure that Vaughn Bryant hadn’t done a proper enough literature survey, as in survey of ancient world literature, before drawing his conclusions.) There is textual evidence of mouth kissing in Greece long before Alexander was born. There is textual evidence of mouth kissing and lip tasting in Ancient Egyptian poetry from the second millennium. (Lorenzi-Bryant claim that the Romans helped spread kissing to North Africa). There is textual evidence of mouth kissing in Ancient Sumerian and Babylonian poetry written long before the composition of the Rig Veda. I have proper book/journal sources for some of these. (Or does Wikipedia prefer your kind of citations to book/journal ones? Very curious to know that.) Once I have found enough for the others, I will make an edit request which asks for these things to be added to the article. In the event that I don’t find the remaining citations, I shall still make the request showing whatever I have, leaving it to the editors on Wikipedia to decide what to do. The Lorenzi-Bryant citation should then be removed. Just because you work hard at finding citations doesn’t mean that others don’t work hard at doing the same. It also doesn’t give you the license to get angry and belittling when someone questions your hard work. Welcome to the real world!

I’m really looking forward to your reply this time.

Andrew Cabral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.77.89 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Granny kiss

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)

non-kissing cultures

there should be a section about it 200.112.101.119 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for the History section (textual evidence of kissing)

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)Andrew Cabral

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

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)

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)

Add pic of women kissing

I think men are over-represented and have oppressed and excluded women for too long so we should have a picture of women instead men, or include women as well. Only having two men kiss makes the article look sexist, misogynist and patriarchal. Socialistguy (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

1) Assume good faith - Unless you can provide evidence that editors have actively tried to keep a picture of women kissing out of the article, it's more likely that it's just that no one has bothered to do it. We're not robots.

2) Find a pic that meets the Creative Commons license and add it yourself. You want it in there, you do the work.

3) If you can't find anything on an article's talk page about the removal of something you think should be in the article, see points 1 and 2 (and WP:CITE and WP:RS for non-picture related material).

4) Two men kissing is usually something patriarchy discourages because patriarchy views the members of a relationship as dominant and submissive instead of as equals. Feminism and gay rights usually go hand in hand -- equality in relationships and all. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson I'll add it; I just wanted to verify that I can first because I don't want my edits to get reverted without reason. Socialistguy (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Legitimate reversions usually come with explanations in the edit summary. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Kissing on the lips as a greeting

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Indirect kissing

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)

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)

"The XXIe"

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Presumably gay male couple image

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Les bisous missing

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)

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)

Mothers

Mothers kiss their babies in order to detect what pathogens they're exposed to and produce milk to help with immunity. Benjamin (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Images are euro-centric

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[12] 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)

"Yankee Dime" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Not fan of image for "A homosexual couple kissing"

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? @Zugzwang55: Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is homophobia

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)

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)