Definitions 2 and 3 sound circular. I'll try to fix them a bit. RSvK 20:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Definitions 2 (allergic reaction) and 3 (chemical and nuclear reaction) didn't sound like different meanings of 'reaction' but just 'reaction' with various adjectives, so I combined them. RSvK 20:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not satisfied with this all-in-one definition. I was reluctant even to combine the senses in (1). When a reporter asks someone for their reaction, it's an invitation to comment, not, say, to storm the barricades. For that matter, you wouldn't say "The reaction of the sulfuric acid to the sodium hydroxide was well-considered, detailed and even-handed."
- Further, the allergic and chemical/nuclear senses don't imply circularity. In fact if you try to make them so, the results are less than convincing:
- An allergic action in response to an event
- A chemical action in response to an event
- Both of these are sufficiently removed from the base meaning of "something done in response to something else" (which makes even less sense if you try to plug in allergic or chemical) as to merit their own definitions. These specialized meanings should be under their own headings (i.e., allergic reaction and chemical reaction), with the truncated form reaction pointing out to them. There are plenty of similar cases around. A recent one is the postage stamp sense of stamp (note that postage stamp does not refer to stamp). -dmh 03:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)