Talk:Ernest Martin Jehan

My edits
I've exapnded quite a bit based on the service records which have been placed online by The National Archives. There's no evidence in these that he was promoted lieutenant commander, and the London Gazette is also clear that he retired a lieutenant. It's possbile there's been some confusion with Daniel Herbert Jehan, also born 2 February 1878 in Forest, Guernsey (possibly twin brothers?) who was also awarded the DSC and specially promoted to lieutenant during WWI. He was promoted to lieutenant commander before he retired (his promotion to Gunner also ante-dated that of Ernest Martin). David Underdown (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Curiously the 1881 census does indeed suggest they could be brothers, but their ages are given as 5 (for Ernest) and 4 (for Herbert Daniel, or Daniel H. as he appears in the census return), rather than 3 as would be expected from teh dates of birth given in their service records. David Underdown (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

some confusion
Yes there was some confusion, you have convinced me so I'll change it to lieutenant instead of lieutenant commander. Thanks to whoever added to the Early Service and Carreer portion, I had just heard of this story and knew I had to write it but I did not know much about Jehans erly life so thanks again for the clarification.


 * It was me. I also sorted out various things related to the Manual of style including making sure all the dates were British style as is appropriate for this article, you reverted most of these in the body text, but not the ones in infoboxes and references, so I've re-standardised.  I've also settled on First World War and Second World War as tehse are the usual British usages.  David Underdown (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate or not
Making sure the dates are British style is NOT appropriate for the simple fact that not only Britons will be reading this. I will change it back because (for example: 12 August 2009 looks more confusing than August 12, 2009). The way I have written it is more common for writing dates around the world and my way of writing it is seen more often on wiki than yours. I wrote this article for the world and not just for the British, which is why it should be changed back to more internationally accepted ways than just the UKs. As far as references go, nobody reads them, just the article which is why I did not bother. You asked why I did not change the battle info to my way, I left it in your way because when writing Action of... it IS standard to write it in your manner as is shown on the Battle of Atlantic 1914-1918 template. Simply, I left Action of 15 August 1915, in your way for organization sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:MOSDATE. All dates in an article should be consistent, and for articles about British people, should normally use the British date style. Day Month Year is the most common standard internationally in fact. (actually I see that in theory MOS does allow different standards for body text and article text, but the national ties argument remains, particularly when there were mixed styles in the article to start with).  David Underdown (talk)

lets stop the fighting
Before I read your most recent bit there I had decided to not start an edit war because of the childish ways in which one is fought. Therefore I have decided not to change the dates back to my style. Which is why when you read my last reply, you did not have to change the dates back. However you did say there was two different styles being used in this articles origional form. This is true to a certain extent. The Action of... date in the battle box was in your style because I wanted consistancy with the other Action of.... blah blah blah articles, as stated in the above paragragh. The dates in the actual text were all in my manner. Also, you say when writing an article about a British person the writing style should be that of Britains. Jehan was not from Great Britain in the first place. I hope you understand the meaning of the word opinion. I do not wish to argue this, as the somewhat intelligent person I am and hopefully you are, I know how stuborn our type of people can be when it comes to opinions. So please lets cease arguing and please add more information to the article if you can, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Had the dates been in a consistent state, I would have left them, whichever way round they were (and stupidly I started editing before I read the talk page again, which I should have done really, and explained before I changed). But as I've said there was a mixture anywya.  I explained in my initial post above that I'd made some changes to make the article meet the manual of style, and rather than question that you simply changed them back.  Now I see yours is a new account so you haven't had much chance to develop articles yet, whereas for me this is an area I work in a lot.  Whilst Jehan is indeed not strictly from Great Britain, he is from a Crown Dependency and he served in the Royal Navy and his nationality status would have been that of British Subject.  I think you also restored the pm to 20:20 hrs pm - pm is simply redundant with the 24 clock, the fact that the hours are greater than 12:00 already tells you it's in the afternoon.  David Underdown (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)