Person talk:Sarah Stebbins (5)

Secondary sources [7 April 2018]

This page, prior to the last edits, is a classic example of why secondary sources need to be confirmed against primary records.

A birth of 18 Aug 1654 was entered, and an alternate date of 8 Aug 1654. A comment in the narrative gives the date 6 Aug 1654.

Careful reading of both pages of the Stebbins Genealogy that mention Sarah shows that p. 60 gives 8 Aug 1654 while p. 97 gives 18 Aug 1654. This is clearly a typo, and consulting Springfield Vital Records, shows 18 Aug 1654 is the right date. Note that the primary source, such as the Springfield Vital Records in this case, is probably where the original date came from anyway, so any deviation from it in a secondary source is almost certainly a typo (unless a detailed analysis is given involving comparison to other primary sources, or reference to more original copies of the Springfield records, showing why it is wrong. For example, the original of this birth record (9th birth on right leaf which says 18 of ye 6 mon), and the town copy, probably made when the original was much more readable, showing the controversy was only created by errors introduced by the various secondary sources.) This is why secondary sources are useful as finding aids, step 1 in a process that involves finding primary sources, but make poor evidence on their own.

The comment says an AFN gives 6 Aug 1654 citing the Stebbins Genealogy (apparently this one). The Stebbins Genealogy does not give this date, but the AFN actually cites 4 sources without saying where the date comes from. It is found in NEHGR, Vol. 5, p. 352, in an very early article on the Stebbins family with no source specified. One can only assume the author misread the original record or got confused by its reference to August as the 6th month, thinking 6 was the day of the month, not the month itself. 2 of the other 3 sources give the right date, and the third merely names Sarah as wife of Samuel Bliss without giving a date. --Jrich 00:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)