Talk:Standard Cross-Cultural Sample

Harvard citation templates

I plan to write a little page explaining them. Meanwhile, see Wikipedia:Citation templates for examples.--Ling.Nut 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Error in map

There is an error in the map for insular pacific. The sample contains Chuukese, not Chukchi. The text has been corrected, but someone needs to edit the map and remove the dot for chukchi

Move to "Standard Cross-Cultural Sample"

I propose moving this article to "Standard Cross-Cultural Sample." This should be done because this is the proper name for this academically published database. This database was re-published online under this same proper name. Other databases on Wikipedia are properly capitalized (including any irregular capitalizations) in their page names: Analytical Abstracts, Current Index to Statistics, DNA Data Bank of Japan, GenBank, Indian Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, etc.

This would seem a noncontroversial page move, but I have witnessed other supposedly-noncontroversial page moves be heatedly opposed before, so I am starting here to provide opportunity for discussion before I move forward.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Quick addendum: I somehow missed the improper capitalization in the section heading for the table. I would think that capitalization would be fixed as well. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• The proposal makes sense: the article is not about cross-cultural samples in general, but about a particular one whose name is Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. – Uanfala (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Added information relating to HRAF and SCCS

I added some information and links to HRAF's holdings relating to the SCCS. The SCSS is a selectable sample for the eHRAF search engine when retrieving ethnographic references, limited to the 'official' documents used in coding for the sample, as well as access to additional documents relating to each culture. HRAF also maintains a public cultural summary for each society. I have provided a link to browse these SCCS cultural summaries. I am VP of HRAF so declare an interest.~~Michael Fischer~~ (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdfischer (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mdfischer, thank you for disclosing your COI. I've reverted your edits because they rely solely on sources directly from your organization's website, which IMO makes them WP:PRIMARY sources in this context. Again IMO, the overlap of the primary sources (which otherwise might have been fine) with them being used by an editor with a conflict (who may very well have written them themselves) is a bit of an issue. It would be better for the content you've suggested be included to be supported by secondary sources.

For future edits discussing (e)HRAF (including the edits I've just reverted), please consider submitting them to the relevant Talk pages using the {{edit COI}} template to submit your requests for evaluation.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed. The sentence currently ending the paragraph I extended is simply wrong in any universe, although I elected not to change it because of possible COI, and we do not, as yet, relate coded data for SCCS (although we will from next year). The information following was as direct and plain as I could make it. It is verifiable from the links provided. I cannot imagine why there would be a secondary source for all this information, unless Carol or I deliberately put it in a future publication. The information is pertinent to anyone planning research based on the sample.

Carol Ember (President) and I have written papers that reference SCCS in HRAF, such as https://kar.kent.ac.uk/63909/1/15.Big%20Data%20and%20Research%20Opportunities%20Using%20HRAF%20Databases%28Michael%20Fischer%20%29.pdf (p4) "Narrowing to a focal community and time period usually means that only those documents pertaining to the right foci are perused. HRAF has provided aids for this, such as marking the documents that match the foci for the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, a commonly used cross-cultural sample (see http://hraf.yale.edu/resources/reference/sccs-cases-in-ehraf/)."

Although HRAF is a membership organisation, most US programmes are members, all German programmes are members and HRAF provides access to individual researchers for specific projects at no cost if they lack the ability to pay. The main reason we are a membership organisation relates to what is considered fair use of the underlying ethnographies under copyright law. We have lots of public material available other than the ethnographies themselves, such as the cultural summaries I linked in my attempted edit.

I do not anticipate others doing more than acknowledging in a footnote they used the documents relating to the SCCS sample from eHRAF. Having looked at what I wrote, I don't see a more neutral way of phrasing this as a draft. So how should I proceed?

On another related matter, but likely more controversial, I noticed in the article that a few of the ethnonyms used for the SCCS societies are not those used by the Outline of World Cultures (OWC), which was the reference Murdock and White used. Some primary ethnonyms in the OWC have changed since 1969 when the SCCS was created, usually based on native preference. The SCCS changes ethnonyms based on the OWC, maintained by HRAF. In a few cases, for example, 'Chuukese' near the end of Insular Pacific (replacing 'Truk'), is 'Chuuk' in the OWC, which tends to avoid the addition of English affixes such as '-ese' on names. I have asked for a review of some of these names for the OWC at HRAF, but don't expect we will likely reverse this position. However, it appears we would have no means for updating the SCCS page, and linked pages in the case where our review leads to no change.

Thanks

Mike ~~Michael Fischer~~ (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Propose Adding information relating to HRAF and SCCS

I propose adding to the text near the end of the "Origin" section:

Murdock also founded the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) at Yale University in the 1940s. However, the SCCS contains a different set of cultures, uses a different set of ethnographic sources, and can be considered distinct from the HRAF.

the following:

HRAF does maintain all the underlying ethnographic documents used by Murdock and White to code these cultures, plus additional sources for most, many more contemporary. The SCCS is selectable as a sample restriction on HRAF search engine for HRAF member organizations. Summaries for each culture are available to the public at .

Discussion

This should not be controversial, except that I have to declare COIs in that I am VP of HRAF, which is the only real source for this information, and I am an editor for World Cultures, which is the current source for the SCCS. Following the passing of my mentor and colleague Douglas White, I am currently seeking an agreement to relocate World Cultures at HRAF to ensure a long term institutional base.

It is unlikely I can find a secondary source with all the information in the addition, simply because why would anyone include this information except in a Wikipedia page. I can reference a paper written by Carol Ember (President) and I that references SCCS in HRAF, https://kar.kent.ac.uk/63909/1/15.Big%20Data%20and%20Research%20Opportunities%20Using%20HRAF%20Databases%28Michael%20Fischer%20%29.pdf (p4) "Narrowing to a focal community and time period usually means that only those documents pertaining to the right foci are perused. HRAF has provided aids for this, such as marking the documents that match the foci for the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, a commonly used cross-cultural sample (see http://hraf.yale.edu/resources/reference/sccs-cases-in-ehraf/)."

However, both Carol and I have COI in this matter.

Thanks

Mike ~~Michael Fischer~~ (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mdfischer, I have added the {{edit COI}} template to this section, which will add this request to the list of coi-related edit requests. There are editors who watch the list and likely have much more experience responding to coi edit requests than I have, so they will be able to better assist with your request. To those who come to check on this request, you can see the discussion section just above, which initiated this. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: Per WP:EL external links shouldn't be placed in the main body of an article, I'd suggest changing this to Summaries for each culture are available to the public at [website name] with the link placed in the "External Links" section of the page.

I'd also like to suggest HRAF does maintain" -> HRAF maintains. I'm also unsure about this bit most, many more contemporary, could this be reworded?

Once these issues are resolved I'm happy to proceed with the request, when you reply if you could ping me with an @ I'll respond as soon as possible.

Thanks, Encoded  Talk 💬 07:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Encoded: I think Mdfischer's suggested edit is an improvement, but was unsure of how to handle a COI situation. Given that it has been a couple months since your response and Mdfischer has not edited WP at all since opening this request, I am thinking I could go ahead and implement these changes with your suggested alterations and a couple of my own. The updated version would be:

Murdock also founded the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) at Yale University in the 1940s. HRAF now maintains all the underlying ethnographic documents used by Murdock and White to code the cultures in the SCCS, in addition to the sources for most of the more-contemporary HRAF entries. The SCCS is selectable as a sample restriction on HRAF search engine for HRAF member organizations. Summaries for each culture are available to the public on the eHRAF World Cultures website.

(add to External Link section: eHRAF World Cultures website results filtered for SCSS entries)

References

Since this varies from both the initial request and your suggested changes, I wanted to involve you in deciding whether or not this was acceptable. Rephrasing the portion you identified as unclear may not be perfect, but hopefully its better-understood now?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)