To start off, I want to mention that I find the thing as a whole just outright weird. In the middle of all this late last night I saw someone mention a Twitter thread where Copeland's spouse (possibly Copeland himself?) is supposedly making a case and defending some of these inconsistencies quite strongly. I just find it a weird thing altogether, honestly.

However - I do have one thing I want to say to explain some of this based on my knowledge:
____________________________________________________________________

Much like the Grimoire of the Shadowlands or Exploring Azeroth: The Eastern Kingdoms this is a book written from a certain point-of-view. That is the whole point. The very childlike and amateur-ish language is intended, as compared to something like the Chronicles. This is a book written from Zekhan's perspective, based on insights from Rexxar by his side.

Was that a mistake? Possibly. I personally wouldn't write anything in this way, and intentionally put incorrect assumptions from characters regarding actual lore-points in a book; see Grimoire of the Shadowlands which includes actual intended misconceptions.

That said, I believe these glaring issues and frankly quite unbelievable oversights in the book are, as baffling as it might be, intended.

We already have five or six novels explaining these events in detail in their own right, from various sources. Along comes a whacky book, written as though it's transcribed in-universe by a very young and curious "zappy boy", who writes that the kaldorei empire was "a thousand years ago" instead of "ten thousand years ago".

To me it's obvious that reading the book itself should be the experience, not necessarily the information or the details within. I believe the misconceptions by Zekhan are intended to be endearing, but to many of us they end up being frustrating more than anything else.

Which is valid criticism, don't get me wrong.

I just think it's important to bear in mind.