<entry id="2222297" stat="D" corpus="jmdict" type="jmdict">
<ent_corp type="jmdict">jmdict</ent_corp>
<ent_seq>1903060</ent_seq>
<k_ele>
<keb>反乱を鎮める</keb>
</k_ele>
<k_ele>
<keb>叛乱を鎮める</keb>
</k_ele>
<r_ele>
<reb>はんらんをしずめる</reb>
</r_ele>
<sense>
<pos>&exp;</pos>
<pos>&v1;</pos>
<xref type="see" seq="1903050">反乱を抑える</xref>
<gloss>to quell a rebellion</gloss>
</sense>
<info>
<audit time="2010-08-24 17:16:59" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Scott</upd_name>
<upd_diff>@@ -12,0 +12,2 @@
+&lt;pos&gt;&amp;v1;&lt;/pos&gt;
+&lt;xref type="see" seq="1903050"&gt;反乱を抑える&lt;/xref&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2010-08-24 19:53:04" stat="A">
<upd_uid>rene</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Rene Malenfant</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
</audit>
<audit time="2010-08-24 22:44:54" stat="A" unap="true">
<upd_name>Brandon Kentel</upd_name>
<upd_detl>from 叛乱</upd_detl>
<upd_diff>@@ -6,0 +6,3 @@
+&lt;/k_ele&gt;
+&lt;k_ele&gt;
+&lt;keb&gt;叛乱を鎮める&lt;/keb&gt;</upd_diff>
</audit>
<audit time="2010-08-25 01:27:27" stat="A">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-02-18 10:09:50" stat="D" unap="true">
<upd_name>Brian Krznarich</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>Curious about the response here.  I'll ask in advance - if we don't want to delete this entry, would a new, nearly identical entry for "反乱を鎮圧する" be accepted if I created it?

I'd suggest that maybe in place of this entry, the glosses under the entry for 静める could be split up a bit, with the current "to suppress" being changed to "to suppress(eg. a rebellion) especially=鎮める".  Or, maybe しずめる warrants two independent entries (my J-J dictionary lists them separately). The current entries for 抑える and 押さえる might be taken as a model(although there is some ambiguity there as well).

Looking at n-grams I think 反乱を鎮圧する would be a far more productive gloss for "to quell a rebellion". 

Google news
"反乱を鎮圧した" 20 hits
"反乱を鎮圧し" 18 hits
"反乱を鎮め"　6 hits
"反乱を鎮めた" 1 hit
 
From the editorial policy - Is it worth including?
* is its meaning not obvious from the component parts?  
   Meaning is obvious
* is it not what someone reasonably proficient in Japanese would come up with when trying to express the English meaning in Japanese? 
   Yes, *and* this isn't the best form.
* is it already in one or more dictionaries?  
   It's phrasal, so probably not (except as an example sentence)</upd_detl>
<upd_refs>(the other kanji for しずめる) Top 10 N-grams Lookup for 反乱を静 (Frequency Order)
反乱を静める	20	  

Top 10 N-grams Lookup for 反乱を鎮 (Frequency Order)
反乱を鎮圧	4089	  
反乱を鎮圧し	2164	  
反乱を鎮圧する	1191	  
反乱を鎮圧した	1020	  
反乱を鎮圧するため	373	  
反乱を鎮圧して	329	  
反乱を鎮める	285	  
反乱を鎮め	269	  
反乱を鎮圧するために	179	  
反乱を鎮定	132	  
反乱を鎮圧さ	129</upd_refs>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-02-19 04:42:14" stat="D" unap="true">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I don't mind keeping this (it has two Tanaka sentences). 反乱を鎮圧する is certainly more common (it is in three sentences.) I wouldn't object to it.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-02-19 22:22:08" stat="D" unap="true">
<upd_uid>robin1354</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Robin Scott</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>I've just submitted an amendment to 鎮める, fleshing it out quite a bit. I think both this entry and 反乱を抑える can be deleted. I don't think 反乱を鎮圧する is needed either.</upd_detl>
</audit>
<audit time="2023-02-20 06:28:55" stat="D">
<upd_uid>jwb</upd_uid>
<upd_name>Jim Breen</upd_name>
<upd_email>...address hidden...</upd_email>
<upd_detl>OK. I've proposed 反乱を鎮圧する so it can be discussed in context.</upd_detl>
</audit>
</info>
</entry>