Talk:Eileen Ash

confusion on century
RIP Eileen Ash - clearly a great character with a life full of interest and achievments !! re the article if Eileen Ash scored a century against Victoria county as described in the text why is she credited with zero centuries and a top score of 34 in the career statistics section ? Was that century in a tour match not "first class" or something or is it simply an error ? many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC) thanks, Joseph, all cleared up then :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a tour match, which isn't covered in the international or first-class cricket stats, as it wasn't either of these match types. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Full name in infobox
Her full name in the infobox has today been altered from "Eileen M. Ash" to "Eileen Whelan". It seems wrong to me to use her maiden name there rather than the name by which she's been commonly known for the last goodness knows how many years. Unless Wikipedia guidelines mandate that the maiden name should be used (which would seem perverse even by Wikipedia's standards)? JH (talk page) 18:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. Seems odd. I vote for Eileen Ash née Whelan.  Adopting husband's name on marriage was near universal (or at least normal practice in England) in those days.  Cross Reference (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RIP
RIP Eileen what an amazing lady you where despite me not knowing you personally. I always enjoyed hearing updates on how you where doing and what you were getting up RIP lovely lady. --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Date of death
Gerontology records show 03rd December as first stated here. Life span 110 years 34 days. The death of Mrs Ash was first announced on 04th December but is likely to have taken place the previous day. It is not usual for an earlier date given to be wrong and then changed to a later one. The opposite happens frequently where a later date of death is assumed because it is only first announced later and then it is found that the death took place earlier. Time will tell but I cannot see why people would think the death took place earlier than it did. There is obviously some confusion going on anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koufi (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This Daily Telegraph source (paywalled) does indeed say she died "on Friday", which would be the 3rd.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The ECB announcement is dated 3 December; that seems definitive to me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen nothing at all which actually states that Mrs Ash died on Saturday 04th December yet someone has changed it to that date. Why do people assume that a person died on the date of the article they are reading or when an article states when the death was announced. That is the announcing of it only not necessarily when it took place. There are however many refs online which state 03rd December and Friday so I am reverting it. If a press article does state 04th December anywhere I would say it is incorrect and makes the same mistake of copying wrong info or assuming. There would be no refs for 03 Dec if she had died on 04 Dec. It only happens wrongly the other way around as here when a LATER date is given in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koufi (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pachu Kannan I think it is likely that the ECB, who actually made the announcement, would have more accurate information than the ICC. Their statement is clearly dated 3 December 2021.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Must be the 3rd, because otherwise how would the ECB have been able to announce it on that date? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The odd thing is that it doesn't seem to have been put on social media until 8am Saturday morning.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , firstly you need to calm down. This is what talk pages are for. It's not the end of the world, and the matter will be resolved in time. *I* was the user who changed it to the 4th if you must know, and it wasn't because I "assumed" anything. Both her fully written/researched Telegraph obituary (here "Eileen Ash, born October 30 1911, died December 4 2021") and her Times obituary (here "Eileen Ash, cricketer, was born on October 30, 1911. She died on December 4, 2021, aged 110") explicitly give her date of death as 4th December. The Telegraph and The Times are two of the most respected and accurate journalistic sources in the UK. That said, conflicting sources would suggest she probably died during the night of 3rd–4th. It is also possible that the date stamp on the ECB site is wrong (e.g. if they use a U.S. hosting service for their website, the dates/times may be automatically adjusted for the States). A quick glance at the first mentions of her death on social media (including people sharing the ECB source) are from late morning/lunchtime of the 4th – surely someone would've seen the article if it was actually live 12–15 hours earlier? I would propose we wait until her name appears in the Probate Records or GRO Index over the coming months to get a definitive answer on the precise date. I can't see any other solution. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is of no importance to me who changed the date. Why would it be ? I don't know you. I can see your reference in the history in any case so I would know naturally that it is the same person.

Because I wrote something that you did not seem to like and reverted your change do not pass judgement on how calm I am or was. I can assure you I am and was perfectly calm. No need for you to make personal comments about my mood to try and come across as all superior and belittle me. I am well aware what talk pages are for thank you.

The Telegraph article I saw and another contributor here has quoted says that the death took place on Friday. The other reference given BBC does not give a date only the date of the article. I cannot see The Times but take your word for it. The other references given in the article are unreliable.

When I reverted your change it then matched the personal information section which still stated 03rd December. That is not why I did it but you need to change both if you are doing it otherwise it looks stupid having two different dates in the same article.

The sensible thing in my opinion would have been to have left the date as it was in spite of your Times reference. The earlier date makes more sense until proved wrong. An early date is far less likely to be wrong in these cases. A later one is far more likely to be wrong. This has happened so many times often when the true facts are far more obvious than here and all manner of press have been wrong and then it is copied everywhere. It may not be like that I admit and time will tell. Many local references also say that Mrs Ash died on Friday 03rd December. However I take more issue with your attitude. Your facts as far as they go are sound of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koufi (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two Telegraph sources. Their initial news report of her death says she died on Friday, and then their subsequent full obituary (which tends to require journalists do a fuller investigation into their life to get the correct facts) says she died on 4th. The Times obituary says the same thing. These are the strongest sources. Initial reports on the deaths of people can often carry incorrect details, which become corrected in subsequent reports. I've also mentioned above the issue around date/time stamping on some websites. I think we should leave it as the 4th (given the 2 stronger sources) until we can verify otherwise through the GRO Index or Probate Records. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree; those two obituaries seem the strongest sources we have up to this point. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an official death notice in The Times newspaper today, posted by her family here. It says:

"ASH Eileen May (née Whelan) died on 3rd December 2021, aged 110, The world’s oldest Test cricketer. Widow of Wilfrid, mother of Christopher, aunt of Julia Whelan Bradshaw. Grandma to Ben, Anna and Harriet, GG to Tommy, Sam, Alfie, Joe, Maddy, Flo, Max and Freddie. Funeral on 11th January at 11.30am, at St John’s RC Cathedral, Norwich. Family flowers only. Donations to The MCC Foundation, which supports young cricketers, c/o Nicholas E Potts & Daughter, 20 Angel Road, Norwich, NR3 3HP. Tel 01603 219779."

I believe this settles it. She died on 3rd. --Jkaharper (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We now have a Guardian obituary to back up the 3 December date. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I did say the 04th was unlikely to be correct. Leaving the earliest date is always the wisest in a case like this as I said until or if proved subsequently to be incorrect. Changing the earlier date and reverting back has caused many more places to copy and wrongly quote the 04th. Search still shows Wiki to say 04th but hopefully that will soon change. Once again somebody is very unlikely to report a death earlier than it happened. They are very likely to report it happened later by a wrong assumption of when it first comes to light. It is certainly not because they are well researched and more details have come to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koufi (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)