Talk:Dan Snow

Double first

"Double first class degree"? I've come across various references to "Oxford Double Firsts" but most of these are spurious since (I think) the only subject where you can get one of these is Classics ("Mods and Greats"). Is that what Dan Snow read?

Most undergraduates sit two sets of exams at Oxford: the first ones are usually at or towards the end of the first year and are called Prelims (short for Preliminaries) or Mods (short for Honour Moderations), depending on the subject. The main difference is that Prelims are unclassified (i.e. they're pass or fail) whereas Mods are classified (first, II:i, II:ii, third, pass, fail). The other exams are called Schools (short for Final Honour Schools, but usually known as Finals); these are taken at the end of one's final year and it is on the basis of these (classified) exams that the final degree (first, II:i, etc.) is awarded.

Double firsts (at Oxford, at least) refer to one of two things: either taking a first in Mods and then a first in Finals; or taking a first class degree in finals in each of two subjects in a combined honours course (e.g. reading Maths and Philosophy and then taking a first in Maths finals and a first in Philosophy finals). The latter seems to be more prevalent at Oxford, not least because many undergraduates sit Prelims, not Mods, and therefore aren't eligible to take a double first.

Dan Snow read History at Balliol; he took a first in Mods and a first in Schools. He can therefore legitimately be said to have taken a double first in History.

Hope this helps. ^talkGiler 09:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in History you do prelims, not mods. As you say, prelims are not classified. So you can't get a first in prelims. and therefore you can't get a double first in History. Millbanks 08:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked, and you're correct that in History you now take Prelims, not Mods. However, this appears to have been the case only since 2003 or thereabouts. The subject of the article therefore sat Honour Mods, not Prelims and the double first comment stands. But you're quite right that appears to be no longer possible to take a double first in History. ^talkGiler 09:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly in the 60s you did Prelims, not Mods in History. Are you telling me that they changed to Honour Mods and then back to Prelims in 2003? Millbanks 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am. The change to Honour Mods happened "in the 1980s" (see http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/alumni/oxhistorian/issue_1/03_studying_modhist.htm). I'm not sure when the change back happened—it was still Mods when I left in 2000 but it's now Prelims (see http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/currentunder/index.htm). Hope that helps. ^talkGiler 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dan Snow "not a historian"/new book

Regarding Dan's lack of postgrad degree and similar lack of published academic work - does his recently published book on the Battle of Quebec count towards being publish academic work? Luctifer (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying Mr Snow's legal right to award himself the title of 'historian', but the book is not from an academic publisher & isn't peer-reviewed like a piece in a proper academic journal would have to be, so its publication is irrelevant to the comment regarding Snow's academic record.80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Snow has no graduate training in history, nor has he ever published an article in an academic peer reviewed journal. Nonetheless, he refers to himself as a 'historian'."

Are you implying that if you have written a work of history and it has not been reviewed in a proper academic journal then it is in some way incorrect to call yourself an historian?

• • If yes, please clarify the status of people such as Andrew Roberts (Salisbury: Victorian Titan; winner of Wolfson History Prize); Roy Jenkins (Gladstone; 1995 Whitbread Award for Biography); Anthony Beevor (visiting professor of history; Birkbeck College); Andrew Marr (History of Modern Britain). None of these have "graduate training in history, nor has he ever published an article in an academic peer reviewed journal".
  • If no, please accept that your edit is logically incorrect.
  • If this is not what you mean please elaborate what you mean by your comment, particularly the use of "nonetheless" imply a perjorative connection between the two statements).

It isn't actually my comment, just a valid observation by another editor. This observation doesn't state that Snow or anyone else is or isn't an historian, it just helps to make clear that, while Snow may claim to be an historian, he lacks the degree(s) & academic work record that would normally lead those engaged in historical research in academic institutions to consider him one of their own. If we had different, single words for 'non-academic purveyor of stories about the past' & 'academic historian' then there'd be no doubt as to which applied to Snow. My own opinion is that Beevor, for example, could fairly be described as an historian because of the quality of his work. In his case, writing about modern warfare & the British Army, his professional experience has proved a reasonably effective substitute for an academic record. Those of Dan Snow's programmes I've seen (the Battlefield Britain series), however, have proved to be amongst the most appalling load of rubbish I've ever encountered - prose versions of Snow's accounts submitted as undergraduate essays would be lucky to scrape 50%.80.229.9.98 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 'non-academic purveyor of stories about the past' May I suggest 'TV Historian'?

Although it would probably be better to rephrase the two sentences regarding his lack of academic historian status. Perhaps "Although widely referred to as a historian, Snow has no graduate training in history, nor has he ever published an article in an academic peer reviewed journal." Takes into account that many consider him a historian, while (hopefully) neutrally clarifying his lack of post-graduate study etc. Luctifer (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid 'TV Historian' because that would only convey the same sense of reservation about Snow's claim if we assumed that the medium of TV made for inherently non-academic accounts, which I don't believe is true. I'd also avoid 'widely referred to as an historian' because I've never heard an academic say anything good about him or his output - the only instances I've ever known of his being referred to as an historian by anyone other than his Dad have been in his own publicity blurb (or material deriving from it).80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I used 'widely' as I've seen him referred to as such by newspapers and various tv shows, which I guess would use his own publicity material. 'sometimes referred to as an historian'? Luctifer (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually see any need to add anything to the current text, but I'd hope any reference to Mr Snow being described as an 'Historian' would make it clear that it's his own blurb rather than anything any proper academic has ever said...80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Has Mr Snow ever done anything on the role of nepotism in history? I'd certainly be prepared to accept his credentials. Straw Cat (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a large number of BBC staff called Dimbleby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dan Snow graduated, in contrast to his father Peter, in history. As long as he does not produce any "factual rubbish", an historan, who focuses in pressenting history to a broad audicens. By means of re-enactiing and presentation of re-enatctments.

I wish we would have such an eloquent "TV-Historian" in Germany. Mr. Knopp is a disgrace for every student of history. And he even obtained a PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.184.211 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Having watched his performance on a BBC show about St. Kilda I was interested to know what qualifications this "historian" had - apparently a degree in history (like 1/4 of thr UK population) and a well-connected father. He was certainly passing off well-established theories as his own, "discovering" things which had clearly been fed to him by a researcher, etc. On chekcing his twitter feed I noticed that he had asked his followers for advice on a good book on 18th / 19th C Britain... bizarre behaviour for a historian. Certainly, he's not really given any indication in this that he's anything other than a TV presenter given the task of dealing with historical themes by the BBC. ====July 2012 ===== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.5 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Programme on Roman Empire

This mentions his media career, but the article did not mention that he co-presented - with a Space Archaeologist (I think that her name was Sarah Mallak) a programme on the Roman Empire on BBC One on December 8 2012, so I have now added this fact to the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC) OK - I now have managed to use the BBC website to find out that the programme was called "Rome's Lost Empire" and the space archaeologist was called Dr. Sarah Parcak. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

'As long as he does not produce any "factual rubbish"' is a telling comment, and the reason I am here. As a history teacher and lecturer in business, I am not inclined to present information that cannot be verified. I have just finished watching one of his "Dig WW2' episodes, and was stunned by the poor research. Not simply fatuous, but factually incorrect. Small issue perhaps, but he made the claim that the Griffon engined Spitfires died out with the Mk XII because the engines were unreliable (having failed in the single instance he excavated on show), completely ignoring the superb Mk XIV that came later (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html). He also described the Mk XII as having two superchargers, but the Mk XII was single stage, double stage was the Mk XIV. This is really basic stuff. He is certainly no military historian. And I feel that were he to do a series on nepotism is British history, the irony would be completely lost on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.209.151.102 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

He presents a programme on the history of railways

It seemed to me strange that this article did not mention his recent (as at January 2013) programme on the history of railways, so I have now added this information to this article. If any one wants to read more information about the programme, s/he can look it it up on the BBC website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q7brf. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a believer

During the narration of "How the Celts Saved Britain", Dan declared that he wasn't a "believer". I'm thinking his public profession of faith (or lack of faith in this instance) belongs in the article as he chose to make this public rather than private. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The National's claim that he called for a second Scottish referendum

The National is the Scottish newspaper specifically devoted to Scottish independence from Great Britain. They have badly twisted what he said on Twitter to support their cause when he was very clear that he does not support it. All he said on Twitter on June 7, 2019 is that he would "get" why Scots would want to vote to leave Britain if Brexit happens and Britain leaves the European union, because that would put up "barriers" for Scotland. He was then asked if he supported an independent Scotland and he replied "No way. One thing Brexit has taught me is the utter insanity of trying to rip countries apart."

So, sorry, but he's still very much in favor of Scotland staying in Britain. No other newspaper or source reported that he has changed his mind, and I have removed the claim from the National.Lilipo25 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this could be attributed, and add his response.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)\

He didn't respond to the National, so it can't.

No, he respond the the question do you support an independent Scotland. If he has said he does not we cannot say he does.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

table formatting error

In the "Television" section, the last two row entries for 2016 have been displaced leftward by one column. I won't try to fix this on a smartphone! yoyo (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Historian?

It seems agreed by al that Snow is a popular historian, not an historian. Does he warrant Category:21st-century English historians? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure that for our purposes that is a meaningful distinction. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll add it to my list of Category distinctions that I don't fully understand. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)