✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Damascus is considered one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
4 sources for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says
Is it true that Damascus is considered one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world?
Yes. Multiple reference sources explicitly support the widely recognized historical fact that Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world.
Verdict: SUPPORTED · 4 sources for, 0 against · Last checked
How claims like this are judged
Judged against reference works: claims of this kind are settled by the historical reference record, not journal abstracts.
Evidence for · 4
Reference article covering this claim directly
Get citation
Wikipedia: Damascus. (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus
See more details
More for · 3
Reference article covering this claim directly
Get citation
Wikipedia: Old city of Damascus. (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_city_of_Damascus
Notes that Damascus prides itself on being the oldest continuously inhabited city.
Get citation
Wikipedia: Wikipedia: Al-Amarah, Syria. (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Amarah,_Syria
Confirms the popular belief and historical antiquity of Damascus being the oldest inhabited city.
Get citation
Wikisource: Wikisource: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Damascus. (n.d.). Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Damascus
Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any
personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check
or guarantee a response time.
Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work