Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 February 3

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 3

What is this melody?

Reposted on entertainment desk.

Aspects of Baroque in today's music?

What are the aspects of Baroque music that exists even today in our colloquial music? In simple words, what influence has the baroque music had on todays music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.240.72 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like you are trying to get someone to do your homework. But I would look to chord progressions and counterpoint, for a start. - Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I like an assignment that's going for baroque. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also compare Baroque ornamentation to jazz improvisation and r&b vocal improvisation. A professor I know claimed that the basic allemande rhythm was the basis of most modern dance music, but I don't have any back up on that. Steewi (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Baroque music article, functional tonality. I would hazard modulation as well. Pfly (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Gagaku/Religious Paraphernalia

I have seen a couple of examples of a type of angular Japanese shoulder guard that spans both shoulders. I remember hearing that they were part of the uniform for a certain Shintô or Buddhist festival and I think I have also seen them used in gagaku, but I can't seem to find any examples of them now. If I knew the name of them, I could research their exact significance, but that's why I'm here. What are they called? ~ジリー (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but in western religion there's the Scapular (whose name literally means "shoulder-thing" in Latin, though it's evolved in several different directions over centuries)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it something like this? If so, see here. Oda Mari (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The most important people you've never heard of

Who are some of the most important relatively obscure people in recent history? Two that I can think of are Malcolm McLean, whose innovations in intermodal transport helped lead to today's globalization, and Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution. Who are some others? And don't say Stanislav Petrov, who did not single-handedly save the world in 1983, much as some people would like to believe. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Linus Pauling may have been the one of the most important chemists of the 20th century, and won a Nobel Peace Prize as well. He doesn't get the press of a guy like Einstein, but he had all of Einstein's genius and quirks, along with being rather politically active. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He won two Nobel prizes, one for Chemistry, and another for Peace. One other name that most people wouldn't know these days is Howard Florey. Although he didn't discover penicillin, it was he who virtually single-handedly did the work to have it made available in massive quantities in order to save lives in World War II, when the discoverer, Alexander Fleming, pooh-poohed the idea. Robert Menzies described him as "the most important man ever born in Australia" and he appeared on our $50 note for a number of years, but his name is still a bit of a mystery to most people. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that in his time, though, Pauling got the same sort of press as Einstein did when he was alive (which is to say, a lot, but he wasn't on mugs and posters at the time). No scientist gets as much press as Einstein, generally. Darwin probably comes #2 and Newton #3 in terms of raw verbiage written about them, but none of those top three are very useful in talking about how well known a scientist is, because they're very anomalous. Pauling was quite prominent in his day though, was considered to be a major player in public debates, etc. --140.247.249.208 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You can debate what "relatively obscure" means. Does it mean "the average person" doesn't know? In that case, I'd nominate Alexander Fleming for discovering anti-biotics (you could quibble about whether he was really first, but he generally gets the honor, and in any case you could credit "the people that discovered anti-biotics"). That's probably saved a billion or so lives in the last century, or a few hundred million at least. He's mildly famous for it, but I think to the general public he's much less famous than, say, Jonas Salk. In that same vein, Edward Jenner for creating the smallpox vaccine.

In terms of "who has saved the most lives in the history of humanity", it's got to be those two along with Borlaug, whom you mentioned. It's curious that all of three of them are relatively obscure, it says something about society's appreciation for science.

Who else? Hmm, Thomas Newcomen comes to mind (does the 18th century qualify as "recent history"?). Watt gets all the credit for the steam engine, but Newcomen was in fact first. I'd say it's reasonable to say that no other invention have changed humanity as much, what with the industrial revolution and all.

There's a bunch of fellas that should be given massive credit for the computer and internet revolution, like John von Neumann, Alan Turing (who really left a bigger impact in other fields), Jack Kilby, Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Tim Berners-Lee and a many others (these are just off the top of my head).

I think that's all I can come up with for now. I keep thinking of people who did relatively small things that had huge impacts (again, Alan Turing for cracking the enigma, the least known of the great heroes of WWII, Nils Bohlin for the three point car seat-belt, Franz Ferdinand just for being shot at the wrong time), but those guys don't really count, do they? I shouldn't think so. Belisarius (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think this must come down to cultural differences. I'd venture that in Britain Alexander Fleming is considerably better known than Jonas Salk, who I'd never heard of until you mentioned him. Given that the OP's title is "The most important people you've never heard of", I can't see how a man who is sufficiently well known to be voted 20th on the BBC's list of 100 Greatest Britons really qualifies. Oh, and who's at number 21? Why, Alan Turing. And that's a list voted for the British public, ie "the average person". Those are not obscure names. Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article, I suppose that Gavrilo Princip deserves the spot more than Franz Ferdinand, as he was the one who pulled the trigger. It's certainly not a good thing he did, starting World War I, but you can't say it wasn't important. Belisarius (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Under that same logic, we should also nominate the admissions director at the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna; else this guy may have ended up an obscure landscape painter rather than, well, what he DID become... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Gray (scientist) (1666-1736) [1] does not get a fraction of the credit he should for his electrical research. He was the first to do careful investigations and classify materials as insulators (silk, glass) or conductors(hemp or cotton thread, silver, iron, steel, brass wire, copper wire), then to experiment with conduction of electricity to extended locations via insulated wires (1729). He invented the "Electric Boy" electrical demonstration (April 8, 1730) which popularized electrical demonstrations, and he discovered induction. I consider him the father of electrical communication. He died a pauper and is buried in an unmarked pauper grave. He has no monument and little recognition, although he was made a member of the Royal Society. He made the jump from "static electricity" to current electricity" without the advantage of the Leyden jar invented later to store up a quantity of electricity, and without the advantage of the Voltaic cell.Samuel Johnson wrote "On the Death of Stephen Grey, F.R.S. in his honor. Joseph Priestley in 1774 gave him much credit for advancing electrical science. A 100 year history of electricity in 1894 pages26-29gave him high praise. Not sure if any obscure unit or effect was named for him. His article only gets about 40 visits a day. If you try to go to Stephen Gray you get redirected to Steven Gray, a disambiguation page. Edison (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was Oleg Gordievsky who saved the world from nuclear destruction in 1983 during Able Archer 83. Turning to the social side of things, Baden-Powell founded the Scouting movement that has affected millions of people. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Simón Bolívar - huge impact on the independence of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Panama, and Bolivia.

Louis Daguerre - inventor of the first practical method of photograpy. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On that same line, there are literally millions of inventions that have come into general use and are taken completely for granted - such as the safety pin, the zipper, velcro, and so many others - but whose inventors are utterly unknown to all but 0.000000001% of people. And Wikipedia, of course. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew velcro was invented by George de Mestral because when he died, Saturday Night Live showed a fake tombstone (supposedly his) that said "GRIP" instead of "RIP" on it. A silly joke that somehow allows me to recall his name with almost zero effort, more than 18 years after hearing it. Matt Deres (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a suggestion. We don't have an article on this guy specifically because nobody knows his name. It could even be a her. Whichever, the individual responsible for this was almost single-handed responsible for untold millions of dollars of changes to how packaging is designed as well as a large number of new laws around the world. Matt Deres (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost by definition all sorts of people could be a suitable person for this. I think I would go for Thomas Midgley, who invented CFCs & introduced lead into petrol, or William Murdoch, who invented gas lighting, pneumatics and steam locomotion. AllanHainey (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous was a woman. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Willard R. Espy, who wrote The Life and Works of Mr. Anonymous (1977). It has a full biography, and photos of what is obviously a male. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-limitation of the Bible

Are there any passages of the Bible that repeal other passages, or reduce their applicability versus if they were taken in isolation? NeonMerlin 02:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For example, Acts 15:28-29 repeals most of the Jewish dietary laws. Algebraist 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Other places. If we look at chronology, Genesis 2 directly contradicts Genesis 1 (for example, in Genesis 1, God creates all of the animals before creating man (male and female). In Genesis 2, it says he created Male human (Adam) first, THEN the animals, THEN Female human (Eve). Also, much of the theme of the New Testament is the idea that Jesus, in freeing us from our sin, also provided a new understanding of God's covenant (or a whole new covenant) which provided relief from the legalistic Jewish one. One could take, for example, Jesus's teaching in Matthew 22:36-40 (also Mark 12:28-34, though the tone of Mark's account is a bit different). In this passage (especially the Matthew version) one could easily see that Jesus's two "Greatest Commandments", which are "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love God with all of you heart, soul, mind, and strength" as replacing the entire Old Testament, where Jesus says plainly "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." In other words, follow these two, and the rest will fall in line.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Internal consistency of the Bible, which has some examples, and a much longer list here. (Some of the examples given in the latter link are a little dubious and can be explained away, but the majority of them are pretty tough to refute.) -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually reading more carefully I'm not sure whether internal contradictions were what you were looking for, but if so, there you go. -Elmer Clark (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from reading most of the New Testament that Jesus intended to put a stop to observance of the Old Testament rules. He does say "I do not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it", but it's clear from the other places where he deliberately breaks the old rule, or gives new teachings that override them, that he wasn't expecting his followers to adhere to the detailed regulations. The most common interpretation is that he intended people to follow the principles, rather than the details - especially the principles so ably described by my colleague above: "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love God with all of you heart, soul, mind, and strength".

Further reading on this subject could include "The End of Religion" by Bruxy Cavey, or the works of N.T. Wright. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is human nature to repeal the rules and regulations set forth by earlier generations. It may seem like a contradiction in the pages of the Bible, but it is actually a reflection of human nature. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pastor Theo, your arguments depends on the Bible being something further and beyond what is "a reflection of human nature"; however, I do not think that it is the task of this help desk to answer all questions about a proposed nonhuman source for the content of the Bible. In other words, the question should be about the texts as we have them, not about whether or not there are some divine and secret reasons why apparent contradictions are not real contradictions.

NeonMerlin, while there are (apparent) contradictions in the text, I think there are much fewer, if any, explicit statements of the kind "What I write here contradicts and partially cancels what is written there". Algebraist gave one possible example.

Some of the laws will contain qualifications of the immediately preceeding text. Likewise, sometimes sayings of "unbelievers" or other bad people are quoted for polemic reasons, and thus immediately renounced. E.g., King James bible contains the following text, concerning a certain fruit:

"Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:4-5)

You could say that technically this "Bible quotation" is annealed by other Bible texts: The context makes it unsdisputally clear that this quotation from "the serpent" is not supposed to represent the truth and nothing but the truth, but quite the converse.

However, perhaps this is too much of sophistery. I do not believe that there is any person (at least not any one who is not completely unsane), who would claim that every single paragraph in the Bible be the absolute truth, independent of the context, even if (s)he is strictly adhering to verbal inspiration. Such a person might rather say something like "Well, the Bible is truthfully stating that the serpent said this, but also that the serpent lied; thus the Bible is truthful, but the serpent's statement is false". You probably are looking for cases where one piece of text read in its context still is negated or qualified elsewhere in the Bible.

As I said, I think there are few or no explicit such statements. On the other hand, contrast e.g. chapters 9 and 12 in Ecclesiastes! Now, that Bible book is rather interesting; as noted by many, its teachings (apparently) are rather different from the "mainstream" Bible ones. In this chapter 9, the philosophy (apparently) is remarkably close to the ideas of the ancient Greek philosopher and atheist Epikuros. Briefly, it states that as all people, good or evil, will have exactly the same end; they die, and as the death for each person is the total end of that individual's consciousness, all people had better try to enjoy a good life while they still have the chance. (Neither Ecclesiastes nor Epikuros claims that you should do so without other concerns; both encourages wisdom; and Epikuros stresses that you should treat other people as well as you would wish them to treat you.) Of course, the (apparent) doctrine of absolutely no existence of afterlife and thus no personal consequences of your actions after your death is not quite in accordance with either modern Judaeism or Christianity, to put it mildly. However, the book was supposedly written by Solomon, and seemingly couldn't just be excluded or censored outright. Thus the book is there, chapter 9 is there, but there is also a post script, the latter part of chapter 12. This does not openly claim any fayults in the text. Instead, it states that the author was wise, and he wrote true things, but that there are too many book seading; you should not read too much of these books; anyhow the sum of it be

"Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." (Eccl 12:13-14)

Now, in my humble POV, this is one of the worst summaries of a text I've ever seen. It (apparently) twists the text to the direct opposite of its (apparent) meaning. However, this is still claimed to be a summary, not an annealment.

I'm sure that many people (probably including Pastor Theo) will disagree with my description. However, I repeat: I am mainly commenting the text as it superficially appears; I'm not discussing allegorical or hidden meaning behind it. (However, I admit that I do speculate just a little about the possible reasons for including this afterword.) JoergenB (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The doctrine of an eye for an eye is an important example. The article I've linked shows that this isn't truly a case of repeal, more clarification and strengthening. The theory goes that the Old Testament rule was meant to limit the amount of retaliation, so Christ simply imposed further restrictions, by banning vengeance altogether. It's repeal of a law if you take it out of context. It's been emotional (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone help translate this? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nachkommen

Hermann Billung war vermutlich zwei Mal verheiratet; eine Frau hieß Oda († 15. März eines unbekannten Jahres), eine zweite Hildesuit. Er hatte fünf Kinder:

• Bernhard I. († 1011), Herzog von Sachsen
• Liutger († 26. Februar 1011) Graf im Westfalengau, 991 bezeugt, begraben in St. Michaelis in Lüneburg, ∞ Emma († 3. Dezember 1038), begraben im Bremer Dom, Tochter des Immed IV. (Immedinger), Schwester des Bischofs Meinwerk von Paderborn
• Suanhilde (* 945/955, † 28. November 1014, begraben im Kloster Jena, nach 1028 in die Georgskirche von Naumburg (Saale) umgebettet, ∞ I Thietmar I. († nach 979) 970 Markgraf von Meißen, ∞ II vor 1000 Ekkehard I. (ermordet 30. April 1002 in Pöhlde) 992 Markgraf von Meißen, begraben im Kloster Jena, nach 1028 in die Georgskirche von Naumburg (Saale) umgebettet
• Mathilde (* 935/945 † 25. Mai 1008 in Gent St. Peter), ∞ I 961 Balduin III. Graf von Flandern († 1. Januar 962), ∞ II um 963 Gottfried der Gefangene († 3./4. April nach 995) 963/982 Graf von Verdun (Wigeriche), begraben in St. Peter in Gent
• Imma, 995 Äbtissin zu Herford

Do we not already have an article on Hermann Billung?

Descendants

Hermann Billung was probably married twice, first to a woman named Oda (who died on 15 March in an unknown year), and second to Hildesuit.

He had five children:

• Bernhard I (died 1011), Duke of Saxony
• Liutger (died 26 February 1011) Count in Westfalengau, attested in 991, buried in St. Michaels in Lüneburg, married Emma (died 3 December 1038), buried in the Bremen Cathedral, daughter of Immed IV (Immedinger), sister of Bishop Meinwerk of Paderborn.
• Suanhilde (born between 945 and 955, died 28 November 1014, buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Georgskirche of Naumburg in Saale, married 1st in 970 Thietmar I (died after 979) Margrave of Meissen, married (2) before 1000 Ekkehard I (murdered 30 April 1002 in Pöhlde); in 992 Margrave of Meissen, buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Church of Georg Naumburg (Saale)
• Mathilde (born between 935 and 945, died 25 May 1008 in Ghent St. Peter), married 1st in 961 to Balduin III, Count of Flanders (died 1 January 962), married second Gottfried der Gefangene (died on 3/4 April after 995) in 963/982, Count of Verdun (Wigeriche), buried in St. Peter's in Ghent
• Imma, in 995 Abbess of Herford

I wouldn't take this at face value: though a wife Oda is well-known, Hildegarde of Westerbourg is attested only in one place, and it's not contemporary. It's not possible to identify the mother(s) of Hermann Billung's children. - Nunh-huh 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Crap! I was translating it at the same time. Oh well, I will keep my comment that it looks like poorly organized genealogical data (is there any other kind?), with the sort of jargon you find on hundreds of websites. (I hate when it is added to Wikipedia like that!) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. We should have a little {{working}} template. The text seems to be from the German Wikipedia's Hermann Billung article. - Nunh-huh 09:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the place associated with Oda? Oda of somewhere. I working on a list of Saxon consorts so that is why I am asking. And the names are they Emma (Imma), Matilda (Mathilde) and what in the world is Suanhilde and Liutger. Never heard those before. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no place associated with Oda. I don't think there's much of anything known about Oda other than her Christian name and her marriage. - Nunh-huh 04:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also an another question totally unrelated to translation. Would the chidlren of Electors of Saxony be consider Prince and Princess? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There were no Electors of Saxony before 1356. Since the electors were dukes, their children were known as duke (Herzog) or duchess (Herzogin). For later members of the family entitled to Prince/Princess, see [2]. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Swanahild is a pretty common early medieval Germanic name. It also appears as Svanhildr and Swanachild. We have a Liutger article that explains the etymology - "liut" shows up often in compounds (Liutprand is another). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Parte presa"? (Venetian decree)

(Moved to Language Reference Desk.)

Cameroon Estate

I am wondering who or what is the proprietor a particularly spectacular estate in Cameroon, outside the capitol city of Yaoundé. The house is located at 03°54′43.68″N 11°30′52.61″E. Inasilentway (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Earth (running version 5.0.11337.1968 (beta)), it's the President's palace, Yaoundé. We don't have an article on the palace, as far as I know, but we do have 1984 Cameroonian Palace Guard Revolt.-gadfium 11:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You can see a photo of it here. And to answer your actual question, the proprietor is Paul Biya.-gadfium 11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the proprietor is probably the Republic of Cameroon, but since the occupant, Paul Biya, controls the republic, the distinction is a fine point. Marco polo (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Druze marriage

What if a Lebanese Druze man marries a Syrian Druze woman? Is it against the law of Druze people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.103 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Druze religious law, but I can't imagine why members of a religion that is centuries old should be concerned with boundaries that date back less than 100 years, particularly when members of the same religion live on both sides of such a boundary. So I can't imagine an objection to a marriage solely due to the different citizenship of the two parties based on religious law. Now, possibly religious law might ban such a marriage on some other grounds, but as I said, I am not familiar with Druze religious law. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out this website; it has FAQs and a Contact Us feature. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think there is any problem. Druze intermarriage is the only common reason for people being allowed by the militaries involved to travel between Syria and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and Israel, think there was a documentary about such a travelling bride. Apropos of nothing, but I think that journalist Helena Cobban's comparison of the Druze mountain heartland to Gormenghast sounds fascinating.John Z (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nudist dating website

Is there any dating website where it is free to sign up look for female nudist as dates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.103 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You could go to OKCupid and say you were only looking for a nudist. - Jmabel | Talk 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You would probably be better off looking for nudist sites with dating sections than dating sites with nudist sections. I'm sure there are lots of sites where nudists can chat to each other, one of those might have something that would help you. --Tango (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Punjabi lyrics with transliteration

Where can I find a website where it has all the Punjabi songs from past to present with lyrics with English transliteration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.103 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dogger Bank.

Hello everyone. I've got a photo that I need a source for (to determine if it is PD or not). Would anyone happen to know who took this photo, and/or when the photographer died? Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find the photo? Algebraist 22:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't find it. It was here. :(

Out of curiosity, would that German Federal Archive donation to the Commons have held a copy, and possible a better caption, for this photo? Ugh, I have no clue for any of this (which might be why I came here ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

610x253, probably came from here: [3]. There is a Bibliograpy and Credits page, but you may have to contact the author of the site.—eric 00:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That is most likely the source (it has the same incorrect caption the image originally had: Von der Tann was certainly not at Dogger Bank, as the ship was in for periodic maintenance at the time). Parsecboy (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Norman Rockwell Prints

Hello... I have a unique set of prints from Norman Rockwell that I found in the attic. It's a set of 6 all of the scenes are Boy Scout scenes. They are come in a vanilla envelope with a history of Norman Rockwell on the front and a pic of him. I was wondering what year they came from and how much they are worth. The only thing I found on the web was another person who has been searching for the same answer for the past ten years. Thank you and all your help is appreciated!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.204.66 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Antiques Road Show! Your query was repeated here. Are there no captions in the margins of your color photolithographs? William Hillcourt, Norman Rockwell's World of Scouting. New York: Harry N. Abrams 1977 ISBN 0810915820 may have some information on these mass-market prints.-Wetman (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And Norman Rockwell's World of Scouting is in my personal library. If you can describe them, I can probably identify them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of Scouting-related works: [4]. I would not bet on any big bucks here— they used to give these away when you bought official shoes and stuff.