Talk:Rules of evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] suggested merge?

I think the suggested merge is not a good idea.

The term "rules of evidence" has a specific meaning, which this article addresses very well. The term is important, and deserves an article of its own.

The more general article evidence (law) does not address that specific meaning, and, imo, is not as well written. -- Geo Swan 23:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Geo Swan's notion that they should not be merged. Rules of evidence refers to a specific body of Rules and implications, whereas evidence (law) not only covers evidence, but case law, the Rules of evidence, and how they are incorporated into the trial setting. Also, by keeping these two items seperate, it will be easier to update the Rules of evidence as they evolve, and also fo the article to get into specifics. If the Rules of evidence is subsumed by evidence (law), the importance may be overlooked and it may be more difficult to attract the necessary attention to update the Rules of evidence. -- --AEnan 16:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the 'rules of evidence' as presented here is distinct in its offering as compared to the blanket term of 'law'. The seperation should remain, imo. Jay Vee 22 August 2006