Talk:Damaris Cudworth Masham

Questionable portrait
According to Damaris Cudworth Masham, Lady Masham (section 1.2 Portraits) on ProjectVox there exists no known extant portrait of Lady Marsham. The image published here has a reference to Findagrave, where it has been posted by a user of the same name as on Wikimedia, with no further referece of the source. I thus suggest that this portrait should be removed as not being trustworthy. Episcophagus (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also check this link. Episcophagus (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree, this portrait has no credentials at all. I mentioned this in Talk with the person who added it some time ago, at User talk:Jochen Burghardt and he explained how it came about - a mislabelled or misidentified image file uploaded, and almost immediately inserted into other language articles on the subject. The User seemed equally unconvinced about it. I am now going to remove it, and I suggest that future attempts to reload it here should be resisted unless a solid provenance is shown. It is not, in any case, a contemporary likeness, but if it really was painted to represent Damaris Masham, even at a later date, then it might be valid. But where's the evidence? Eebahgum (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Date of birth
There seems to be a bit of confusion about the year of birth. The cited source says 1659, but the ODNB link at the bottom of the page and DNB give 1658. Is there any reason to choose one over the other? Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 21:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As the given birth date is 18 January I expect this is a case of the old style of dating. In England, until the mid-18th century the year was (often) calculated, for birth and baptism purposes, to begin in late March rather than on 1 January. Hence the year of grace A.D. 1658 could be represented as beginning in March 1658 and ending in March following, which we would by modern reckoning include in 1659. This would, of course, include 18 January 1659 in the overlap period. The indication is probably, therefore, for 18 January 1658/59 (as such dates are sometimes written). However, one might want to check that some repeated confusion has not crept in over the years. I'm not quite sure how to check this at present for this particular event. Eebahgum (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)