Talk:Rules of evidence

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

I agree that rules of evidence is a separate and distinct concept from the more abstract concept of evidence (law). Rules of evidence article should be expanded to include reference to various jurisdictions (I've added Canada) and specific procedures. pbryan 07:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

revisit merge with Evidence_(law)?
I believe that this article and Evidence_(law) should be combined into a single article, possibly retitled "Law of Evidence." Both articles are quite weak, and combining them would reduce the effort to create a single decent article. More substantively, can anyone state what the difference is in the proposed subject of this article and Evidence_(law). There isn't one set of "rules", as these obviously differ by jurisdiction, so it doesn't particularly make sense to have an article generically devoted to "rules." If there is a difference, generically, between the law of evidence and the rules of evidence, it is eluding me.

Comments above suggesting that rules can be distinguished from caselaw evidence a lack of understanding about how the rules actually work and also suggest that the commenters are under the misimpression that there is a single set of rules.

--Sjsilverman (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

History
Under the heading "History", "false evidence" is mentioned. But, this need not be the hearsay evidence just mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)