Talk:free-flowing river

RFD discussion: August–October 2022
Sum of parts:. This, that and the other (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would argue that this is a valid term as it is specifically defined in a federal resource as referenced and is important in classification. It is not merely the sum of it's parts in those instances, but defined with certain characteristics that may not be the common expectation. For instance possible obstructions, diversions, dredging history, and the like can all be factors. This is also a controversial term in how it is defined due to the historic use by indigenous peoples and how it would affect them. I recommend looking into this important term that is my first contribution here instead of just giving a condescending greeting on my user page and sending to RFD without even notifying me. Terrickisaiah555 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the entry for would suffice. DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * One observation is that the US in which the term is given a specific definition does not use the collocation free-flowing river. The term free-flowing is applied predicatively, in the definition, to “any river or section of a river”. It is used attributively in “free-flowing condition” (3×) and “free-flowing stream”. Elsewhere we find “free-flowing segment”. Thus, it appears that at the very least we have a transparent sum of . It may seem that the adjective  as applied to rivers or river segments can be salvaged as having a specific technical meaning, but the use of English extends beyond the jurisdiction of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and we find uses that pre-date that Act or are from outside the US, sometimes with similar yet different definitions (“A free-flowing river is defined as a river where ecosystem functions and services are largely unaffected by changes to fluvial connectivity allowing an unobstructed exchange of water, material, species and energy within the river system and with surrounding landscapes.”) My preliminary verdict is that free-flowing means having a flow that is not impeded, which is a transparent sum also used in free-flowing speech, free-flowing thought, free-flowing consciousness, free-flowing communication, free-flowing electricity, ... Legislators often give an operationalized definition of a common term for the purpose of formulating enforceable rules (“For the purpose of this Act, ‘X’ means Y”); this does IMO not make the term X have a specific technical meaning.  --Lambiam 11:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Rather fascinating. I would like to hear input from someone who is a specialist in this area. But naturally Wiktionary only has users who are specialists in computer programming and Harry Potter. Equinox ◑ 08:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Even then I will complain: can you say "the river is free-flowing" in which case this is SoP. Blah blah. Equinox ◑ 09:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would add that, while "This, that and the other"'s SoP claim is probably technically correct: if this is the standard term in the discipline for this type of thing, we would be hurting ourselves by not including it. (I'm still angling for "free-flowing" and not this challenged phrase. I bet you could use it with many other nouns.) Equinox ◑ 09:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete because if any part of this is idiomatic, it seems to be free-flowing (because you can, and the laws apparently do, impart the same meaning via the river is free-flowing, free-flowing stream/waterway, etc). - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as SoP. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. The argument that it defined in a particular way in an official document falls apart when you look at the breadth and specificity of terms which are also in that group. - TheDaveRoss  12:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - TheDaveRoss  14:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)