Wikipedia talk:Obituaries as sources

WP:RSP

I put a link to this essay on the RSP-page [1], we'll see if it sticks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Since this essay is really about neutrality, I don't think a link at RSP is appropriate. Perhaps Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard should have an "NSP" page for sources perennially discussed there. James500 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How and why to use obituaries

As described in Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources, obituaries have a dual role of memorializing and informing (announcing a person’s death specifically). Focusing on the informing side, obituaries can provide important biographical facts such as full name, date and place of birth, date and place of date, spouse’s name, marriage date, and burial location. Since public records cannot be used for Wikipedia, obituaries are often the only widely published source of some of this content, especially for individuals from the 19th century and early 20th centuries who are notabble but not the subject of a biography. My general rule is to only cite the facts and avoid the puffery—and learn to tell the difference.

Whether an obituary is primary or secondary does not really matter, but its reliability is what is important. Historically, newspapers had staff who wrote obituaries. These obituaries sometimes had a byline and were occasionally published in the news section, rather than in the obituary section. The content was fact-checked and independently created and is, therefore, both secondary and reliable. Just remember to avoid the fluffy memorializing. (FYI: This same combination of useful facts and fluff is also found in most period biographies). Another reliable category of historical obituaries are the short death announcements that were written and distributed via wire services like the Associated Press. These rarely cite the distributor but are easy to spot because the same obituary shows up in newspapers across the country, often under a heading such as “Out of the Area.” As an added benefit, these short obituaries are light on the fluff and provide a source published outside of the individual’s hometown or state, possibly helping to establish notability.

Paid or family-provided obituaries were common throughout the 20th century. Some papers like The New York Times used to indicate if an obituary was paid or from a “special contributor,” making it easy to tell the difference. This also shows the sheer volume of obits that were staff-written and, therefore, reliable. Another benefit of the NYT is its selectivity—if the NYT wrote an obituary for someone, they were considered important and are possibly Wikipedia notable. Obituaries in The Washington Post were of a similar caliber and selectivity.

Today, we can pretty much assume that most obituaries are either paid or family submitted, rather than staff-written. This does not mean that basic facts are not reliable—full name, the date of and place of death, the spouse’s name, and where the funeral is taking place are facts that are reliable even though the source is primary because the submitter has a vested interest in getting these details correct. They want people to know about Memaw and to show up for her funeral. Check WP:PRIMARY for more details on using these sources—it is allowed.

There still are some obituaries that are staff-written, especially in major newspapers and for important leaders. Consider who the person is, the tone of the obituary, and placement within the newspaper (a family-submitted obituary is not going to run in the news section). The Washington Post and The New York Times are still valuable for the reasons stated above.

Rublamb (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Obituary is a primary source

According to Primary source "Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary." Here is the source from History of Medicine: "For example, an obituary can be both a primary an a secondary source." (page 366) Greg Henderson (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)