Talk:1355: Airplane Message

How can Iry-Hor, who's name comes from a written record, be considered "prehistoric"? History begins with the written record. By definition, Iry-Hor would be the earliest historical name we know. 108.162.216.38 13:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the Hebrew Bible goes even farther back, making the beginning of recorded history a much earlier date. I've always thought that the term "prehistoric" was farcical.

The Hebrew Bible contains the names of many individuals alive before Iry-Hor was born. The man Adam would then qualify as the oldest named individual in history. Even if Adam isn't accepted (and I can't see why not; the Hebrew Scriptures being as much a historical document as any Egyptian papyrii) then take your pick of the many others named well before the Eqyptians came on the scene. Fiddlinmacx (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The text (glyphs, really) about Iry-Hor were written during his lifetime. The Hebrew Scriptures were not written until around 2,500 years later, literally eons after the Egyptians had been 'on the scene.' Claiming that characters in Genesis are historical figures from 4000 BC is approximately as scientific as claiming that Tumok (from the 1940 film 'One Million B.C.') is actually the oldest human whose name we know. 108.162.221.73 14:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Oz

+1 -- Religious scripts are not reliable as historical records. Spongebog (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not the ones in the Pentateuch, anyway. Once they get to the book of Joshua they start getting their facts straight. 199.27.128.65 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The explanation seems complete. Can the incomplete tag be removed? Cheeselord99 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

DONE, but please check the language and the layout first before calling on this. I'm not native English, so I can't be better than native speakers. Couldn't believe...--Dgbrt (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Editing on a mobile, though, so anyone else want to double-proof? 141.101.88.210 02:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay to me - I'm on a desktop Computer 108.162.219.42 06:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The title text is a reference to a recent askhistorians question at reddit 173.245.53.131 13:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the trivia. I don't think it's appropriate to add a chunk of text every time cancer comes up. The category can be added, and those wanting more information can click through to that page. Second note, nowhere else on the wiki is a recurring theme noteworthy enough for the inclusion of a trivia section. I'm going to wholesale remove the section, but I wanted to be verbose enough to be clear about my reasoning for it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to either leave a compelling summary for its re-inclusion, or to comment on this thread. lcarsos_a (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)