Talk:Duty of revolution

Merge with Right of revolution?
This page concerns a concept that is a minor variant of the Right of revolution. There is not enough encyclopedic material to justify a page. It should be merged with Right of revolution. lk (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Go for it. Carol Moore 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * There seems to be more information available on the duty of self-defense in general (e.g. in the Market for Liberty) than on the particular manifestation of self-defense which is revolution. All-in-all, I'm rather disappointed that these issues have not been examined more thoroughly. But I daresay there's a good chance they will in the future. EVCM (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since EVCM raises a weak objection, I'm going to leave this for another couple of weeks. If not enough encyclopedic material can be found for this topic, I'll merge it into Right of revolution. lk (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel this is a sister topic to Right of Revolution, but not the same topic. Many political theorist would agree with that one, but fewer with this one.  Whereas the Right can at least point to examples of its use in history, Duty is a more theoretical concept, and looks exclusively at historic writings and quotes.  If they were to be merged, I could see it being confusing with Duty being a subsection there, and without a corresponding history section and overlapping quotes, such as the Declaration.--Patrick Ѻ 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. If you feel that it deserves its own article, beef up the current references, keeping to this topic only, and add more information and references. Otherwise I'd agree with User:Lawrencekhoo Carol Moore 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I will certainly try this week to do so.--Patrick Ѻ 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been more than two weeks. I'm going to merge the pages now. If the merged page gets too large, we can always split it again, but please don't recreate this page unless there is enough notable encyclopedic material to justify a full page. lk (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)