Talk:Neanderthals 'knew what they were doing': Archæologist Dr Naomi Martisius discusses her findings about Neanderthals' behaviour with Wikinews

OR
Please see the "Sister links" section for the video and the audio recording of the interview. •–• 10:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain, here, the circumstances of, and methods and procedures used to do, the interview. --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notes needed here. --Pi zero (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Circumstances? I felt like reporting the story when I was going through news feed.  Found it interesting.  So I contacted Dr Martisius via internet-based communication last month.  Please see the date of upload -- when that happened, if that is really required.  Procedure?  Fixed a time and a common medium for video interview -- recorded the interview, and both audio and video recordings are in the sislinks. •–•  15:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thx. --Pi zero (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Checking the transcript
Some overall thoughts occur to me, as I'm nearing completion of my main pass through the transcript. --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She says Neandertal rather than Neanderthal. Likely the interviewer says Neanderthal.  Perhaps our transcript should reflect this distinction.  Once I've finished my main pass through the transcript, it should, hopefully, take only a relatively straight pass through to confirm this and adjust the transcript accordingly.
 * She often uses "like" as punctuation. We filter out the "um"s; should we filter out the punctuational "like"s?  This would considerably clean things up, but would also take some of the flavor out of it.
 * Early in my main pass, I added some "[laughs]" notations. I was aware this couldn't be done too much.  When I've finished the main pass, I mean to go back and reconsider each of those, with an eye to their status within the transcript as a whole.
 * If there interviewee says words like "realize" or "summarize" in their speech, I am free to write "realise" or "summarise". If they say "no one", and I write "noone", I think I am well within my rights to do so.  Same with the alternate spelling of "neanderthals", that is "neandertals". •–•  02:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Those sorts of things are well within your rights, I agree. Keeping in mind, those spelling differences don't correspond to a difference in pronunciation.  Neanderthal/Neandertal is an audible difference.  Also, I'm not thinking so much of "what must we do, for correctness", but rather "what do we want to do, to convey as much of the flavor as we can".  This interview has a tone/flavor I'd love to capture.  (I can't see any way of capturing in the orthography some of the interesting distinctions in pronunciation, such as over the word "bovid"; but "Neandertal" can be represented orthographically, so it strikes me as worth considering.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . Re, your last edit, I think you should see this discussion. You are welcome to share your opinions about it. •–•  21:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Either spelling of Neandertal is fine. The way you have it works. Nlmartisius (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But I also see the point about distinctions in pronunciation. Using the different spellings could be a way to call attention to this. Nlmartisius (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could filter out the "likes". I hate reading it. I need to stop using it! Nlmartisius (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it is worth, it is my understanding that the final syllable in Neanderthal is pronounced with a hard 'T' but with a little 'h' inflection. So it's neither "-thal" as in "that" nor "-tal" as in "tall" but rather "-t(h)all" with a quick transition to the 'h' as if saying "tea hall" really quickly. --SVTCobra 18:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The interview consists of two different pronunciation, and the discussion is, do we want to preserve the difference in this case -- and yes, we want to. •–• 22:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Journal name error
In the first paragraph, it says that the paper was published in Nature. It wasn't. It's in one of Nature's journals called Scientific Reports Nlmartisius (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant by that was it also showed up on nature.com. Would that be an inaccurate representation?  In that case, I don't mind updating -- that Nature.com link mentions "Scientific Reports", yes. •–•  23:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could say that it's published in Scientific Reports, which is a journal from the publishers of Nature. Nlmartisius (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ •–• 12:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Look good! Nlmartisius (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Dr Naomi Martisius.png
The copyright status on this is interesting; I'm guessing captured via webcam? I'm not sure if that does or does not qualify as own work, although I assume somebody somewhere must have considered it before. BRS (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider this photo: File:Milo Yiannopoulos 2016.jpg. It comes from a YouTube video which was recorded by someone in an online interview, and was recorded and uploaded under YouTube CC BY.  They later removed the license, but that is still kept without any issue.  But if you are still not convinced, maybe  can briefly explain that. •–•  19:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Milo knew he was being broadcast to others. Did Dr. Martisius know? It's a touchy issue about the granting of rights and what is supposed to be implied and what is not. It becomes a 'new media' vs. 'old media' debate centered on laws that haven't caught up with the current state of the world. If it is still possible to contact Dr. Martisius, I suggest getting permission and/or requesting an actual portrait that she hands out. Just my thoughts. --SVTCobra 18:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In the email that I wrote to Dr Martisius, I clarified the intent to publish the interview on Wikinews, which they agreed to. In the exact verbatim, they asked "How do you usually conduct interviews?" to which I responded "I generally conduct interviews via skype, which I later transcribe. I hope you are okay with that." Received response: "Skype works for me". •–• 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

'Obsolete' job description
Archæologist with the 'æ' is not standard English. I propose archaeologist or archeologist. See archæologist and/or archæology. --SVTCobra 18:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I second this. It really looks esoteric to say the least. --LonleyGhost (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

COI
While I haven't reviewed the particular edits, I would think that an interviewee editing their own interview is in conflict with the spirit of WN:COI. To support this position, I present this extreme example: Imagine an interview with the President of the United States which was edited by Donald Trump. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In general you're right, of course; in this case, well, I'm gradually scrutinizing everything that was done, along with the various things I had in mind to do on a second pass through this transcript. --Pi zero (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can agree to that. But do we have audio or just a transcript? I also know that scientific interviews can be burdensome on the interviewer, but we ought to discourage direct editing in the article by the subject. It will look improper. The transcript could have been presented in the talk or even off-wiki for factual edits by Dr. Martisius. --SVTCobra 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The interview is available on Commons; links are in the article under Sister links. --Pi zero (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4572048 [Passed]

 * Thanks for the review, Pi zero. •–• 08:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Etherpad link for questions
Most of the questions were formed here: Etherpad link. •–• 11:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)