Omissions in the Editing of Oral History

Mohammad-Mahdi Abd-Allah-Zadeh
Translated by Kianoush Borzouei

2026-1-6

After the completion of interview sessions, the original recordings are archived, the interviews are transcribed, proofread, and re-listened to. If the material possesses the qualities required for publication in the form of an article or a book, the editing process must begin. In general, understanding a verbatim transcription of an interview is often not straightforward and requires editing so that it may be transformed into a fluent, well-documented text that is easy to comprehend.

It should be noted that editing begins at the very stage of interview design, through the formulation of questions aligned with the intended objectives, and continues throughout the interview itself by means of follow-up questions as well as the guidance and management of the session. A skilled interviewer anticipates clearly defined goals for the interview and conducts the session in accordance with those goals.

If the editor of the text is not the interviewer, they should, after reading the transcript two or three times, listen to portions of the audio recording in order to become familiar with the narrator’s tone and manner of speech; only then should the editing process start, with the aim of producing a fluent text that conforms to the standards of formal Persian. Nevertheless, certain features of oral discourse will remain, and as far as possible, the authenticity of the interview is preserved.

One of the stages of editing involves removing portions of the transcribed text. Much like a sculptor who creates a beautiful statue by carving away parts of a block of wood, the editor must be mindful of the audience and respect the value of the reader’s time. However, decisions to omit material should not be made quickly; omission must be applied only when necessary. Just as excessive material can render a text obscure, unjustified deletions can undermine its clarity and expressiveness.

The most important categories of removable content are as follows:

1. Words that contribute no informational value, such as “well,” “I remember,” “in fact,” “let me say,” “as you are,” “so to speak,” and similar expressions. Some of these filler phrases are habitual for certain interviewees, while others tend to use them more frequently when they become emotional in front of a camera or recording device, as a way to organize their thoughts and speech.
2. If the number of such words is limited, they should not be removed, as they help convey the narrator’s tone more vividly. Even when these expressions occur excessively, two or three instances should be kept so that the narrator’s verbal peculiarity remains perceptible in the text.

Some individuals repeatedly rely on one or two expressions while speaking. For example, consider a case in which an interviewee uses the phrase “I remember” approximately twenty times per hour. Over the course of twenty sessions, this would result in more than a thousand superfluous words in the raw transcript—an amount that would inevitably exhaust the reader’s patience.

3. Concepts expressed multiple times in different formulations, where a single instance suffices. For example: “The conditions were harsh; we did not dare raise our heads above the trench; everyone was terrified; it was very difficult.” In this case, the sentence “it was very difficult” is redundant and should be removed. This habit varies among individuals and depends on personal and situational contexts. One reason for the use of synonymous expressions is to gain time to recall memories that have faded in the narrator’s mind.
4. Redundant words and expressions, such as when the narrator states their date of birth according to the solar, lunar, and Gregorian calendars, whereas mentioning the solar date alone would suffice; or when Persian words are repeated alongside their foreign equivalents.
5. Excessive use of the conjunction “and,” which leads to unduly long sentences. Such conjunctions should be removed and replaced with full stops. For example: “The wind was blowing and the weather was cold and I was shivering and Hossein was cold as well.” By removing these conjunctions, the sentences become shorter without any loss of meaning; on the contrary, they become easier to read.
6. Rude, offensive, or disrespectful words, gestures, and sentences that may cause distress, resentment, or offense to others, or that are inconsistent with the dignity of written discourse, such as derogatory descriptions or humiliating language. For example, “he was really pizuri^[1].”
7. Honorific titles such as “martyr,” “doctor,” “engineer,” and the like, when these titles were acquired at a later time. For example: “Martyr Ali Hosseini, the battalion commander, said…” In such cases, the title should be omitted.
8. Secondary questions whose answers are effectively identical to the answer to the main question. In interviews where, due to the closed nature of responses or the necessity of certain prompts, a series of subsidiary questions is posed, the inclusion of these questions may be unnecessary. They should therefore be removed, and their answers—after minor revisions—integrated into the response to the primary question.
9. Statements whose publication may entail familial, legal, or social consequences, such as family secrets or military matters, and which may, after publication, lead to discomfort, anxiety, a sense of humiliation, or regret on the part of the interviewee. In front of a camera or recording device, the interviewee may not have sufficient opportunity to reflect on the consequences of public disclosure. In such cases, the editor should consult the interviewee so that, with their consent, the necessary revisions are made, or the material is removed.
10. Full verification of every statement made by the interviewee is neither necessary nor feasible. Only those statements that conflict with dominant or widely accepted narratives should be subjected to verification. If such statements are deemed unreliable, the matter should be discussed with the narrator so that it may be corrected or omitted. If the narrator, even insistently, refuses to accept the correction, the editor’s view should be stated in a footnote. The publication of distorted or unreliable material would otherwise compromise the editor’s scholarly credibility.
11. Deviations and excessive decoration in speech. Some individuals habitually avoid addressing the core issue directly, instead resorting to digressions, rhetorical embellishment, unnecessary explanations of the obvious, unwarranted politeness, and references to matters in which the narrator played no role and which do not contribute to clarification. Such material should be removed.
12. Unnecessary repetition, which is more likely in lengthy interviews and is also a habitual trait of some speakers. Repetitions should be eliminated, retaining only those statements that appropriately fit within the chronological narrative. Unfortunately, in some cases, repetitive questioning by the interviewer is itself the source of such redundancy.