Talk:Living document

message: Are there other sources to support this page?  It had been redirected to Living Constitution, which I believe is the most common use of the phrase.  I see the one reference linking here which seems to describe a different use in business, but is there anything more on other uses?  Otherwise, the redirect seemed to make sense. Mackan79 16:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other living documents, as cited (Wikipedia, the common law, as cited), and anyway, Living Constitution is rather US-centric, whereas the concept of a living document is can be found worldwide. Lockesdonkey 22:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the term "living document" silly and meaningless. Really, there's no such thing; there are only documents, some of which are edited or revised over time. I would speculate that the term originates from opponents of original US Constitutional intent--those who found it inconvenient to their activist planning. That would make it effectively a euphemism for the word "revising" or simply "editing" a document. The term "living document" is rarely used in other contexts, and when it is, simply stating that a document is "subject to revisions" would have been sufficient. The only results Google seems to come up with in a search for "living document" are US Constitution related links. We should probably delete this silly page and forward to "Living Constitution". The only content here worth preserving are the dictionary references themselves, which stand on their own. Nothing else here is verifiable or backed up by any sources. Garoad (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fork

message: Two sources, to internet dictionaries no less, for a topic central to corporate and constitutional law? Are you joking? I deleted the entire section dealing with the law specifically on the grounds that it contains not one source yet pontificates freely on topics such as "non-Originalist" interpretations of the US constitution. A topic as dense and scholarly as constitutional law, not to mention a topic that couldn't be more full of credible source material if someone bothered to look, is utterly off-limits when it comes to making un-cited statements in what purports to be an encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.131.192 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Article Sourced Worse than a Grade School Report: Very tempted to delete outright. 

message: its not to be confused with the 'living-document' view i have just posted. yes the constitution is a living document, but the idea that it is to be interpreted that way is called the living-document view. much as federalist is to anti-federalist, living document is to bedrock, which i also mentioned here. not enough information to create a page just for those two ideas so i have left them here. thanks
--Roy Stanley 07:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the following article: Living Constitution. It was very unfortunate that  someone had just discarded all information about this meaning of the term, including the link to that article, instead of correcting it (see previous section of the Talk page). —C.P. (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the living constitution 

message: Using the US constitution example of 2 schools of thought, Originalism uses the term "Originalist" to refer to a supporter. However we do need a term for a person who supports the living document theory as outlined in this article. It seems that a "living-documentist" is the perfect candidate for this. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add noun "Living Documentist" to contrast with "Originalist"