Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 July 19

= July 19 =

Liliuokalani's desire to behead people
Did Liliuokalani really stated she wanted to "behead" the people who overthrew her? I find this piece to be highly offensive and unlikely. Was it just a ploy to blacken her name and portray her as a bloodthirsty tyrant Queen? I'm guessing since this was the age of yellow journalism. She denied the accusation in her autobio, but what does other say? And the reason I find it highly unlikely is the fact that the Kingdom of Hawaii never practice decaptation, at least not during the age of constitutional monarchy, and only practiced hanging, confiscatining property, and exiling people who commited treason.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Liliuokalani's autobiography is "yellow journalism"?!? The source for the statement in the Wikipedia article is here (search for the word "beheaded") and the Wikipedia article fairly faithfully reports what it says, which is from the work Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen written by Liliuokalani herself.  Wow.  You could, you know, check the sources before raising an objection.  -- Jayron  32  01:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What?!? Did you read my question? I never said Liliuokalani's autobio was "yellow journalism". I was asking if what people said about her wanting to behead the revolutionaries was "yellow journalism". The people as the newspapers that came from the mainland that Liliuokalani mentioned in her biography. How can an autobio be yellow journalism to began with?! I talking about the newspapers and what the Americans said about her beheading the revolutionaries. I am perfectly aware of what her autobio said, she said that she never stated that, it wasn't up to her as a constitutional monarch, she was shocked that Minister Willis would use that word after their informal meeting and that a lie can spread far but the true is always misunderstood. Using an autobiographical source is okay but I was wondering if there is any historical analysis on this controversial aspect of her ever saying such a word. I'm on the Queen side on this but I'm always want to be sure.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the wikipedia article says that she says that she never said it. So I am confused as to why you are so offended by the Wikipedia article?  -- Jayron  32  02:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the article. I trying to start a discussion on the topic itself not what wikipedia says.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. I thought you were offended that the Wikipedia article was spreading "yellow journalism", not that the contemporary journalists of Lilioukalani's time were guilty of it.  I only note that modern "news organizations" (and I use the term very loosely) are guilty of the same level of stupidity as those spreading silliness about the former Queen.  Unfortunately, I do not know what the source of the Lilioukalani rumor was.  Sorry for the mixup.  -- Jayron  32  02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the decision to archive this question. It is a bona fide question contrary to the archiver's assertion. It is certainly proper to ask for a discussion about the answer to the question apart from the content of any article. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Will India become a communist country?
The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India. It seems that the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency is winning against the Indian government. Will India become a next communist country? And why the U.S. is not supporting the Indian government to fight the maoist rebels? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that states that "The Maoist Rebels have taken control of 30% to 50% of India"? Nobody seems to have noticed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there are two "legitimate" communist parties which participate peacefully in democratic elections, being Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Communist Party of India, and they each have a few elected officials here and there. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) appears to be the most radical group, having claimed some terrorist attacks.  There is also the Naxalite movement, which appears closely allied with the Maoists.  I don't know how active they are, but I don't think any of these groups, either the participating parties or the radical militant groups, represents a threat to take over India, either by democratic or violent means.  -- Jayron  32  05:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The rebels control large areas of rural India; the BBC claims "Maoists and affiliated groups are active in more than a third of India's 600-odd districts". The map on Naxalite shows affected areas; the "seriously affected" are far less than 30%; and because they focus on rural areas it will be an even smaller percentage of India's population.  They are based in remote forests and mountainous areas where the police and armed forces can't go (and the police action seems to have been notably inefficient). Although they launch regular terrorist attacks they don't seem to be centrally organised and they're not likely to be able to defeat the world's third-largest military, the Indian Armed Forces. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the Communist parties (which have a coalition under the name of the Left Democratic Front) that are quite powerful in the southern states of Tamilnadu and Kerala aren't very Communist; they wave hammers and sickles about but they actually run the best-governed states in the country, with high literacy rates, high employment, low mortality etc. They're probably more what we'd call socialist in actual fact. (Most of the Keralan 'Communist' candidates that I met earlier this year were far too fat to qualify as real Communists anyway!!) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  belonger  ─╢ 09:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be surprised, but the defining ideological goals of a communist party are not low literacy and employment and high mortality. It's absurd that achieving good results should automatically disqualify a party from being called "communist" (see also No true Scotsman fallacy). Not to mention the fact that most of the "real", Stalinist communist parties, unsympathetic as they were, also achieved high literacy rates (and high employment, for what it's worth, and affordable basic health care ensuring relatively low mortality) - despite dictatorship, initial periods of political terror and economic catastrophes, inefficient economies etc..--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a huge number of communist parties in India (see Category:Communist parties in India), most of which are insignificant in national politics. Some of them compete in elections and, of those, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is by far the most important.  However, the fronts it leads lost control of both Kerala and West Bengal at the last elections, and politically it is not supportive of the Naxalite uprising.  I expect that the original question regards the Naxalites, but, as the article states, "As of 2009, Naxalites were active across approximately 180 districts in ten states of India accounting for about 40% of India's geographical area" - 'active in' is very diferent from 'taken control' of.  Even if the Naxalites were to somehow manage to take control of much of this area, they have very limited support in much of the country, and are not a single, unified force, so I can't imagine any circumstances under which they might make the whole country communist.  I expect that the U.S. government has not shown any particular support for the Indian government in this because it is an internal matter with no serious international implications, and the Indian government has not (to the best of my knowledge) asked for outside assistance. Warofdreams talk 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you tried asking a magic 8 ball? We don't have the ability to see the future or we would not be here, but rather relaxing at our mansion in St Barts from all the billions we made in stocks.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are any of the vaguely popular parties actually communist, advocating a 100% property tax, or are they merely socialists calling themselves communists? How are the relations between the bona fide communists and socialists? Would you say the Indian Maoists are more totalitarian, fascist, communist, or socialist in terms of their policy planks? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever told you that communism is about "a 100% property tax" was wrong.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that in order to understand the Naxalite rebellion, and why it is spreading and increasing in strength, we need a socio-economic backdrop. In the interior of India, stretching from Nepalese border to northern Tamil Nadu, the is a belt of relative economic underdevelopment. To a large extent, this region consists of dense forests and hills, difficult terrain to access. Since many centuries, this unaccesible terrains are home to adivasi peoples, culturally diverse and markedly of different cultures than the peoples living in plain areas. The adivasi peoples have been largely unicorporated into British colonial system and the modern state. However, as India has reached a higher degree of economic development in recent years and prices of natural resources has gone up there is a wide process to exploit the forest, mining and land resources in the adivasi lands. A frontal attack against the adivasi communities. The Naxalite movement, which existed prior to this development but was largely dormant in many areas, was able to reignite through mobilization of adivasi demands. Thus when looking at a map the zone of Maoist influence might appear very wide, but in reality the zone of influence has clear limitations. Unlike the mainstream communist parties the Maoists lack support or ability to mobilize support amongst the wider sections of peasantry (and yet less in the working class and urban poor). So even if they come to dominate the entire tribal belt from north to south, it is highly unlikely that they would capture power natuinally any time soon. --Soman (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Austria" in Austria
(Whilst the question is overtly a language one, I'm guessing the answer is historical or political, hence raising it here.) I recently visited Austria, and was a little surprised to find the word "Austria" used frequently in the name of Telekom Austria, a bank, and a couple of sports teams. In fact, in many ways it was more prominent than Österreich except in an adjective sense. Why the adoption of the English term? I'd be surprised to find any such institution in the UK called Vereinigte Königreich (even considering the greater spread of English compared to German). I considered that Österreich with its imperial feel might be unfashionable, but surely avoiding the name of your country would be a big step? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Link to discussion the last time this came up. By the way I'm an English expat living in Austria and I can attest to da troof of what you are saying. --Viennese Waltz 11:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Austria is a Latin name. See our article Name of Austria which says, amongst other things, "The name "Austria" is a latinization of German Österreich. This has led to much confusion as German öst is "east", but Latin auster is "south". It is first recorded as Austrie marchionibus (Margrave of Austria) on a deed issued by Conrad III to the Klosterneuburg Monastery in 1147. On the Privilegium Minus of 1156, the name of the country is given as marchiam Austriae (March of Austria) and as Austriae ducatum (Duchy of Austria). In English usage, "Austria" is attested since the early 17th century." Hope this helps. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You give a poor example, cf England or Angleterre, Schottland or Écosse, Nordirland or Irlande du Nord, Wales or Pays de Galles. Austria must look novel or quaint to the German eye.
 * I thought ost was east. Sleigh (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "East" is Osten as a noun, but the adjective "eastern" is östlich, so öst- is also associated with the meaning "east". I think a lot of the use of "Austria" you're seeing has to do with wanting to be international. Austria isn't just English and Latin: go to Austria and click "show" and you'll see how many languages call it "Austria" or something very close to it. People all over the world will recognize the name "Austria" even if they have no idea what "Österreich" is. (Of course, many of those who recognize will confuse it with "Australia", but that's a different problem.) "Austria" is also easier for foreigners to pronounce than "Österreich". "Austria" just makes for a better internationally recognizable and marketable brand name. Angr (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If "east is Osten as a noun", what's the difference between der Osten and der Ost? --Viennese Waltz 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good question. There's certainly no significant difference in semantics; to judge from Ost, it's a matter of how they're used. Ost is used in navigation and meteorology, and as a prefix in place names like Ostdeutschland and Ost-Berlin. All the main directions have a form with and a form without -en: Nord/Norden, Ost/Osten, Süd/Süden, West/Westen. I'm not a native speaker, so I don't have a very good feel for when to use each; personally I'd probably never use the short forms except in compounds (not just place names like those mentioned above but also words like Ostwind). Angr (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my German is a bit rusty but I would avoid using 'Ost' on its own, which is a prefix (as Angr explained above) or an abbreviation. Ostwind = East wind/Eastern wind. Osten is the proper word. Der Osten = the East. Er kommt aus dem Osten = He comes from the East. AFAIK no German-speaker is going to say: Der Ost. Er kommt aus dem Ost. Flamarande (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, except that, as Angr's link to the German Wiktionary makes clear, der Ost can be more than either a prefix or an abbreviation. --Viennese Waltz 13:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's wise to use "Ost" rarely for a noun meaning "the east", and I can't think of a good example where you'd use the definite (or any) article as in "der Ost", unless you're writing about the wind in a maritime poem. Ost without article can be seen in juxtapositions such as "Ost und West" or "West begegnet Ost", and it's used when discussing a compass for example "eine Drehung von Nord nach Ost". While you will find examples for "Richtung Ost", you'll find at least tenfold the number for "Richtung Osten"; the former sounds a bit military or technical or something (?). English Wiktionary's entry, simply defining it as "the East", is a bit too concise. ---Sluzzelin talk  01:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A.E.I.O.U.--Rallette (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Map of Italy
I quite like and have made some use out of this map of Germnany c1000 AD, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heiliges_R%C3%B6misches_Reich_1000.PNG but I was wondering if there was any chance of finding a similar map showing Italy around the same time and in the same level of detail, with the towns and cities and rivers marked and divided up into its various regions?

79.66.101.168 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's something at the Perry-Castañeda Map Collection that will strike your fancy. Pais (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Google Images gave me this map which looks to be roughly of the same scale, level of detail, age, and time period as the one of Germany above. -- Jayron  32  15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Inheriting royal houses in Europe
Why were the decedents of Queen Victoria of the UK members of her husband's House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and not her House of Hanover? Is it because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover or because houseships can only go down the male line? If it's because the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha outranks the House of Hanover, how are the ranks of houses determined and why didn't Victoria's titles of Queen and Empress make her house higher-ranking? If it's because houseships can only go down the male line, then if a female queen-regent married a commoner, would her child become a king or queen with no house? --174.91.8.226 (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In all but a few rare cases, the house name always follows male lines. (One major exception I can think of is the House of Romanov which didn't change names in common usage even after Paul I of Russia inherited the throne, his own father wasn't a Romanov but a member of the House of Holstein-Gottorp). Thus, Victoria's children become members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because that is the House of Prince Albert. Pre-supposing the next question, the reason that Charles, Prince of Wales is considered part of the House of Windsor rather than the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (which is is Father's House) is simply that the Queen declared it to be so. Otherwise, however, noble houses follow male lines. As far as what would happen if the queen married a commoner, it may just be that the Husband's surname would become the House name; though since I literally can't think of a single time of it happening, so the best we can say is that it is an unresolved problem; that is since it has never come up, there is no official solution.  -- Jayron  32  16:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So Elizabeth II just unilaterally declared that her children would be in her hourse instead of her husband's house, and that's enough to break the male preference of houseship inheritance? Do we know why Victoria didn't do the same thing for her children? Was it just the culture of her time? --174.91.8.226 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer to #1 is yes. The answer to #2 is we don't know why, we can only note that she did not.  Its kinda like asking why you didn't eat ham and eggs for breakfast this morning.  People don't often make copious note of why they didn't choose to do some random act.  Positive action is usually much easier to assign the "becauses" to; since people usuaully have justification for actions they take.  People "don't do" an infinite number of things in any given second of their lives, and thus there isn't often justification for why we are not doing something.  -- Jayron  32  17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything, Victoria's behavior in this regard is less surprising than Elizabeth's. Noble children inherit their father's house the way commoners' children inherit their father's last name. If a commoner named Victoria Hanover married a commoner named Albert Saxe, no one would be surprised that their children bore the surname Saxe. But if a commoner named Elizabeth Windsor married a commoner named Philip Mountbatten, people would be surprised (perhaps less so today than 60 years ago) if the parents decided the children would bear the surname Windsor. It probably never occurred to Victoria that her children would belong to any house other than their father's. Angr (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that Victoria wasn't subject to the same anti-German sentiment that caused George V of the United Kingdom to create the House of Windsor in July 1917 and she felt no need to do anything but follow custom. And when his granddaughter made her proclamation in 1952, she had only been queen for two months, it may have also been due to anti-German feelings. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that Charles and Anne, who were both born before this edict, spent the early parts of their lives as members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  11:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No because prior to the official engagement announcement, he renounced his Greek and Danish royal titles, converted from Greek Orthodoxy to Anglicanism, and became a naturalised British subject, adopting the surname Mountbatten from his British maternal grandparents. Alansplodge (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew all that, but didn't he nevertheless remain a member of the House of S-H-S-G? Couldn't he claim to be a member to this day? --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Genealogically, yes (because the emphasis of genealogy is identifying an individual in terms of descent from ancestors -- Charles is patrilineally an Oldenburg-Glucksburg); dynastically, maybe (because, on the one hand, application of a formula of inheritance to descendants {dynasty} of one particular ancestor is how monarchies select a monarch -- and Charles is the heir-eventual to the UK's Electress Sophia. But on the other hand a nation (UK) which uses a dynasty (Glucksburg) as the source of its monarchs usually ignores whether other nations (Greece, Denmark, Grand Duchy of Oldenburg) also use that source unless convergence of crowns becomes likely. Each nation defines membership in its own dynasty, and nothing prevents those definitions from overlapping -- Paul, Emperor of Russia was both a Romanov and a Holstein-Gottorp. Albert II, Prince of Monaco is required by Monegasque law to bear the name of Grimaldi but he is also a member of the House of Polignac as a remote male-line heir to the dukedom thereof, his grandfather's change of surname being irrelevant to current French law on titles); and legally, no (because the name (e.g. Mountbatten-Windsor) and family (e.g. Windsor) to which one belongs is determined by the laws which govern one's transactions in any particular nation (UK for Charles), e.g. marriage, voting, taxation, property ownership. But one could be legally married to several women in Riyadh yet simultaneously only to one in London, divorced and single in Las Vegas but still married in Rome: one nation's laws don't automatically override another's. Incidentally, dynasties have often been named for non-royals who acquire a throne by inheritance, conquest or election (e.g. Bernadotte, Bonaparte, Karadjordjevic, Stuart, Tudor, Vasa. FactStraight (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that excellent reply, Fact Straight. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  12:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What kind of culture is America?
What kind of culture is America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoamchtoothMMX (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * America is not a culture, it is a country. Why do you ask? Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * America does have a culture, however, and if the OP is interested in reading about it, the article Culture of the United States has a good overview, and they can follow links from there as they wish. -- Jayron  32  17:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * America is not a country either, it is a whole quite large landmass, over there somewhere. 79.66.101.168 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In English, the word "America" as a singular without an article usually refers to the United States of America, unless contexts suggests otherwise. If you want to refer to the landmass comprised of the two continents of North America and South America, the more common term is "the Americas". --174.91.8.226 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, it has more than one culture. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The question is too open-ended. Can the person posing the question give some examples of the kinds of cultures that are to be considered? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Western. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers firing bullets in the air to celebrate
News footage from Libya often shows the rebels firing automatic weapons in the air to celebrate reports of a troop advance, or reports of Nato bombing some Qadaffi asset. March 28, 2011: "There were several rounds of firing in the air by jubilant rebels who vowed to bring an early end to the 41-year-old Gaddafi regime." May 11, 2011: "..convoys of machine-gun trucks paraded past with their occupants cheering and firing in the air. "God is great!" they chanted. " Even the Libyan government troops fired in the air to celebrate: April 29, 2011: "The Libyan government sent text messages to mobile phones of its armed supporters, urging them to stop firing in the air in order to save ammunition for "our crusader enemies,""This would seem to be a bad idea, since the ammo might be needed if they actually fought a battle, and since money is reported to be short and a AK47 ammo costs $230 per thousand rounds retail. A bullet that goes up must come down and might hit someone or something. Was it a habit of soldiers in major wars of the 19th or 20th century to celebrate thus? Or would they quickly be disciplined for wasting ammunition? Is it a Middle Eastern thing, or a "improvised untrained rebel army thing?" Is it a characteristic of "soldiers" who have not actually been in combat? Or did German US, British, and Japanese soldiers do it in WW2, or UN and Korean forces in the Korean Conflict, or the US and allies and the Vietnamese/Viet Cong do it in the Vietnam War, or the opposing forces in Libya and Afghanistan? A Google News Archive search for "celebratory gunfire" from 1939-1945 produced no results. A similar search limited to Libya for 2011 produced 45 results. Edison (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a Middle Eastern thing -- in the parts where everybody is armed, any sort of celebration will provoke lots of shooting into the air -- even weddings and things like that. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They do it in some parts of North America, too, but it's a terrible idea. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you look at Celebratory gunfire? -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I love how Wikipedia has an article on almost everything. Is there an article on Wasting ammunition? I guess notm, because it comes up a red link. Edison (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Shooting your guns into the air in celebration was also something gangs of "Cowboys" did in "Wild West" (at least according to Hollywood... reality may have been different). Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a particularly male thing, and perhaps a testosterone-fuelled male thing, and may be symbolic of shooting ... other kinds of "bullets" ... behind closed doors ... if you get my drift. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean ejaculation, but I am just taking a wild guess here. -- Jayron  32  21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You got my drift. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it has more to do with the noise than the bullets. It is a "gun-culture" equivalent of ancient warriors banging their swords or spears on their shields (or priests ringing bells for that matter). Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, is it an activity of rear echelon military fakers, pretend soldiers, as opposed to something soldiers who are on, or have been on the battlefront do? (In 1964 the Laotian army fired most of their ammo at the Moon because there was an eclipse, but at least they imagined they were frightening away an evil spirit). Edison (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Think fireworks, if you have guns and bullets to hand, way more convenient. Richard Avery (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather more hazardous though: see bridegroom in Turkey accidentally kills three relatives while firing an AK-47 in celebration at his own wedding and Gunfire kills at least 11 people across Yemen after president's first appearance since injury. I'm sure that there are many similar stories out there. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say to me it seems like a similar thing to setting of fire crackers. Vespine (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My father, who was a British soldier in Calcutta from 1944 to 1946, was trained there in riot control. There was no special riot equipment and they were instructed that if they ever had to fire their rifles to disperse an angry mob, it was much safer to fire at their legs than to shoot into the air. What goes up, generally comes down somewhere else. In the event, the sight of a few Ghurkas drawing their Khukris was always enough to persuade the citizens of Calcutta that they had urgent business elsewhere. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The bit of the OP's statement that interested me was A bullet that goes up must come down and might hit someone or something. A bullet fired straight up in the air can and has killed people. It depends on the calibre of the bullet which in turn affects the terminal velocity. It is unlikely that a .22 bullet would kill but a .45 would almost certainly kill if it fell directly on the head. Bullets fired at an angle are even more dangerous as they still carry some of the muzzle velocity when landing whereas the vertically fired shot reaches the point at which velocity is zero and so on falling back to earth accelerates due to gravity only. Its been calaculated that the Kinetic Impact Energy of a .45 round is over 20 times greater than that of a .22 round. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was taught in gun safety training that a 22 long bullet can travel over a mile and still kill someone. Rarely will it go exactly straight up. If fired from a handheld weapon, (as opposed to some Mythbusters vise adjusted by plumb bob and corrected for wind)it will likely travel in a parabola, continuing its stabilizing spin, with a higher terminal velocity than a bullet dropped from an extreme height and tumbling to the ground. Certainly a military round is likely to be more massive and to have a higher muzzle velocity, with greater lethality even if fired at a high angle. Edison (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)