> I did not say that you did say that.

I did not say you said I said that. My point was it was irrelevant.

> And I explained why history is not the same as out of date information. Thus, you have not explained why someone would submit an article with out of date information.

There is nothing to explain. Some history is on topic. History includes articles with out of date information. Consider the 1st Linux announcement.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6276961

> History includes articles with out of date information.

Yes, but a lot of out of date information is of no historical interest. That's the distinction I was getting at when I said that history is not the same as out-of-date-information.

What's distinctive about history is that we recognize it as history. In other words, when we take an interest in a document as historical, we don't assume that it describes the current state of affairs. Nobody is misled in that respect.

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6276961

Notice that this submission has the year (1991) appended, which is all we wanted in the first place. It's simply standard practice on HN and has nothing to do with whether the information included is out of date, contrary to what rahimnathwani was arguing. Indeed, someone could publish a blog post in 2025 that includes out of date information (of no historical interest), but it wouldn't receive a (2025) label on HN, because the label is not an indicator of out of date information, just the publication year.