Talk:Reaction video

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is not substantially similar to the deleted version. It is based on reliable sources that did not exist at the time of the deletion discussion, Articles for deletion/Reaction video, in 2012.  Sandstein  09:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed per reason given. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 10:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A way to steal content?
Recently there's been a huge wave of 'reaction' videos that actually display someone else's content in the corner while the poster 'reacts' by doing pretty much nothing. The wikiarticle should cover the topic of legality of such videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.0.146 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there any WP:RS for this?  Sandstein   20:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is another early example where a helpful editor attempted to flag the glaring problems with the article failing to cover its content and controversies, but was stonewalled by the efforts of a single editor. 67.82.74.5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Asking for a source constitutes being "stonewalled"? AntiDionysius (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's a media source basically describing a recent iteration of the topic raised 5 years ago here, regarding a recent popular controversy regarding reacts and fair use by some prominent youtubers and streamers, dubbed by some "react-gate". I also added 2 law reviews on this topic to the article. I do have some additional sourcing but I'm a little unclear on what sites in this space are considered reliable- yahoo news, gamerant, dexerto, sportskeeda have covered this although I dont know if any of those are looked upon favorably. I feel solid about the reliability of the law review articles though as these are scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on the topic and would ask that at least these be preserved. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)21:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * U.S. Marines watch "2 Girls, 1 Cup".webm

WP:3O
has re-added the update and formal tags to the article, without explaining what exactly needs updating (with what sources) or how the style of the article is deficient. Instead, they write: "Reverting your unwarranted and unilateral removal, without any discussion, of tags that have repeatedly been left by multiple editors. Article has been flagged numerous times as suffering from inaccuracies, poor writing, and out of date sources and content by multiple editors, yet a single editor seeks continually to impose his will without discussion. This appears to be a case of WP:OWN". This does not explain why these tags are needed. I'm therefore asking for a third opinion.  Sandstein  10:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I count as an uninvolved editor who can respond to a 3O request, but as someone who has edited this article previously, I don't see the applicability of the formal tag. The article could do with expansion, there is more it could cover, but I don't know that an update tag is the best way of achieving that. I think both tags can go.
 * 's assertion that "Article has been flagged numerous times as suffering from inaccuracies, poor writing, and out of date sources and content by multiple editors" is questionable. They added the update today. I can't see it having been applied previously. The formal tag was added by a different IP address in October. The article didn't have any tags before that. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I see a 3rd tag removed from Sandstein in June of 2022. That’s 3 different tags removed by one editor, who created the page and wrote the vast majority of its content, on a page that has received few other edits over that period. This history of this page is replete with examples where this user exhibits ownership behavior, attempting to stop on spurious or weak procedural grounds all attempts to improve an article that describes its topic in only the most tenuous and basic way. A reader of the current article in its present state would learn almost nothing about the topic. Additionally, it is firm policy that a lead must include all significant controversies about the topic, hence the questioned material is required to stay in the lead and not merely the body. Cheers. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We could replace the tags with multiple issues or inaccurate if you like. A quick glance through the history of this page reveals multiple editors have attempted to tag the page for wildly inaccurate content, yet nearly every change to the article over a period of many years has been reverted by Sandstein, who created and contributed the majority of the content of the article, in a shockingly flagrant case of “I own this article.” With all due respect, this behavior and repeated stonewalling by a single editor of many attempts to improve a woeful article by multiple other editors MUST end now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.74.5 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I had a look through the history of the article and I did not see evidence to support your claim that multiple editors have attempted to tag the page for wildly inaccurate content, yet nearly every change to the article over a period of many years has been reverted by Sandstein. Can you provide diffs to back up your claims? I would urge you to follow WP:AGF. For now, as you appear to be alone in wanting these tags and other editors disagree, I am removing them. Bondegezou (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You must not have looked very hard then, since 3 of the last 50 edits are Sandstein removing tags that flag problems with the article. The talk page also shows examples of editors pointing out similar problems with the article that were ignored. As Sandstein has contributed the majority of the article’s supposed content, originally created the article, and vigorously opposes every attempt to improve it on procedural grounds that are tenuous at best, this appears to be a very severe case of WP:OWN. Since you insist on diffs, here are 3 different attempts to flag problems with the article that were removed by Sandstein without any effort having been made to address the alleged problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_video&diff=prev&oldid=1091854621 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_video&diff=next&oldid=1178413673 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaction_video&oldid=1187744894 67.82.74.5 Nor would we even need the tags if every improvement to the article would stop being reverted, but it will likely to take quite some time for an article in as sorry a state as this to be fixed.  (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to drop this, I really don't feel it would be productive to continue to debate over whether the article deserves tags. Let's just work on addressing the issues. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead policy
Wikipedia’s lead article states, in no uncertain terms, that all significant controversies must be covered in the lead : “including any prominent controversies.” Reaction videos have become extremely prominent on YouTube and Twitch in recent years. There is significant legal and public controversy regarding the extent and conditions under which reacting to content constitutes fair use. Hence the controversy must be mentioned in the lead, per policy. Immediately removing sources and new material rather than editing it is not the way to improve the article, which needs work. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)